Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (NO.2) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Earnings

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will arrange for the earnings exemption limit for pensioners to be raised from £2 to £2 10s. a week.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now take steps to permit old-age pensioners to earn £3 per week instead of £2 per week as heretofore.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 6th February to the hon. and gallant Members for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray).

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister not agree that this limit is now unduly low and that it penalises thrift, creates great hardship and ought to be increased?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Member will agree that having asked the advice of the Advisory Committee, having secured that Committee's willingness to

give the matter priority, it would be very wrong for me to comment.

Mr. Gower: Has my right hon. Friend obtained an impression, both from speeches in the House and views expressed outside, that many people would like to see this matter dealt with with great urgency?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes. I am sure that this is a matter which commends itself to a great many people.

Welding (Lung Hazards)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many cases of metal fume fever among welders have been brought to his notice; and whether he will schedule lung hazards due to welding as a prescribed disease.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir." As to the second, I am not aware of any lung hazards due to welding not already covered by the Act which would satisfy the statutory conditions for pre-cription.

Dr. Stross: If the Minister receives information and evidence that there is serious risk that some forms of welding do cause fibrosis of the lungs, will he consider taking action?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I think the hon. Member appreciates, if fibrosis of the lungs results from the process of welding, a claim can already be put in under the existing law in respect of pneumoconiosis. That is why in my answer I referred, perhaps obliquely, to the fact that risks which welders run are already covered in a number of directions.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware of the industrial hazards that may be associated with the process of welding; and whether he will institute research into these hazards, and particularly into the composition of the electrode coatings.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. But as this matter is being given attention by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service's Factory Inspectorate, I do not think that I should at present be justified in duplicating the research work being done.

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are special hazards if the coatings of the electrodes contain metal such as cadmium, which may well be prescribed or has been pre-cribed lately, and in view of the specific dangers would he not at least try to get all the information possible for his Department?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: From the hon. Member's supplementary question, I think he appreciates that certain aspects of cadmium poisoning have been prescribed in accordance with the Answer I gave a few days ago. On the main issue, the matter is being very fully investigated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. The hon. Member will appreciate that it is difficult to draw a hard-and-fast line between research for the purposes of prevention and research for the purposes of prescription.

Digest of Statistics

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will analyse the certificate of incapacity in his Annual Digest of Statistics so that, in addition to the information already given, there will be an analysis of incapacity according to occupation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For sickness benefits, this digest has included analyses by occupation which were specially prepared for the year 1951, and arrangements have been made which will, I hope, enable similar analyses to be provided for some future years. For industrial accidents and prescribed occupational diseases, analyses by industry, which seem to be generally more useful than analyses by occupation, are included in the Digest.

Pensioners (All-Party Deputation)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will meet an all-party deputation of Members of Parliament to discuss the financial difficulties confronting old-age pensioners and others in receipt of State pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly, Sir. The hon. Member is, however, I am sure, aware that State pensioners in the sense of retired public servants are not within my responsibility.

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, and I shall be very pleased to get an all-party deputation of Members who, I hope, will be able to persuade him to do something for these pensioners.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall always be glad to see the hon. Gentleman, either alone or accompanied.

Pensions (Rates)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) what further plans he has for improving the financial position of old-age pensioners, war disabled and other pensioners;
(2) in view of the continued rise in the cost of living and further increases in rents, what action he proposes to take to safeguard the position of those in receipt of State pensions.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has for increasing the purchasing power of the basic retirement pension above its 1946 level.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have no statement to make on these subjects today.

Mr. Lewis: When the deputation waits upon the Minister, and in the interim period, will he give consideration to the Chancellor's statement that the cost of food alone rose twice as fast last year as in the previous year, as it is on food, in the main, that the old-age pensioners spend their limited incomes? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, give real consideration, between now and the time of receiving the deputation, to increasing these pensions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall, of course, consider anything that is said either by the Chancellor or by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several times recently he has told us that the purchasing power of the pensioners is the same as it was in 1946? Does he not think that pensioners ought to share in any improvements in the standard of living that have taken place since then? What is the Government's policy for them?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is another question.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what further consideration he has given to increasing the basic rate of war disability pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of and am studying the representations made to my predecessor.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that when the last increase was made the holder of a disability pension got 5s. a week or less as a result of that increase? Will he also bear in mind that his predecessor gave a promise, when he received a deputation on the subject on 30th November last, that he would bring its representations to the notice of his colleagues in the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman on speaking terms with his colleagues on this subject?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question, is that of course he will appreciate that that increase, which came into effect in February, 1955, was the largest increase in the basic rate ever made. As regards the second part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question, I can assure him that in this Government that which he rightly fears in consequence of his experience with the last one is not the situation.

Widows

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now specify what steps he has taken and upon what evidence he has acted in arriving at his decision to make no improvement in the pensions of the 10s. widows; and if he will now reconsider the plight of these widows, most of whom are in need of assistance.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) if, having regard to the recent Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, he will now amend the regulations regarding the payment of widows' pensions by replacing the present 10 years of marriage condition by a three years of marriage condition;
(2) if he will now amend the Regulations so as to replace the widows' basic

pension of 10s. by a pension at the standard rate of 40s.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in considering the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, he will give priority to improving the pensions of 10s. widows.

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the fact that the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee makes no recommendation for an increase of pension of the 10s. widows, on the ground that there was no power to do so under the terms of reference, what action he now intends to take to increase these pensions.

Mr. McKibbin: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in the light of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, he will take steps to meet the needs of a class of pensioner in respect of whom no recommendation is made, namely, the 10s. widows.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The position of these widows is one of the matters dealt with in the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which I laid before Parliament on 3rd February. All the matters contained in the Report are under consideration.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that other classes in the community have received increases in their incomes to enable them to cope with the increased cost of living? Will he, therefore, state why these poor 10s. widows should be singled out for invidious treatment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want, as the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, will have gathered from my original Answer, to be led into comments on individual aspects of this matter until the whole matter has been properly considered. Surely the House will understand that?

Mr. T. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman speed up consideration of this Report, and give an assurance to the House that the Government will bring forward legislation as speedily as possible, in view of the dissatisfaction and disquiet on this question throughout the country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will certainly try to consider this very important and somewhat complicated Report as speedily as I can, but I think that I must come to the point of decision on it before even talking of legislation.

Mr. McKibbin: On 14th November, in answer to a question of mine, my right hon. Friend's predecessor said:
I hope that when the Report appears the difficulties will be fully resolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 22.]
In these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend see that something is done immediately so that his Lordship, who is now in another place, will not be too uncomfortable there?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think I should be out of order if I did anything to make a Member of another place uncomfortable.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a 10s. widow in my constituency, of whom I have sent him particulars, is able to do only part-time work for £2 5s. a week, and yet is refused increased pension or National Assistance? Does he really believe that anybody today can live on £2 5s. a week, when rent, fuel and clothing are at their present prices?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall certainly look into that case, as the hon. Lady has been good enough to send particulars of it to me, but I would rather not comment on it until I have done so.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now reduce to three years the qualifying period for pension for widows who remarry.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is now in a position to state the Government's attitude to the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widows' Benefits.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if, having considered the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, he will now make proposals for increasing the allowances of the widowed mother, and the widow in receipt of 10s. pension; and if he will introduce the necessary legislation with all speed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Recommendations on these subjects are contained in the recent Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Collins: In reply to an earlier Question about increases in the earnings limit from £2 to £2 10s. a week, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he was going to accept the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on that point. Is he going to accept the advice of the same Committee on this point?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my Answer. I said, with regard to the other Report, that I was considering it. I gave no indication of my views upon it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question on this Question is, I think, founded on a false hypothesis.

Mr. Thomson: Since the National Insurance Advisory Committee's remit expressly excluded the Committee from considering the level of benefit of the 10s. pension, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, when considering this Report, that he will also consider raising the level of this scandalously inadequate pension?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the National Insurance Advisory Committee takes the view that the actual level of benefit is outside its terms of reference, but I am sure he knows that paragraphs 55 to 68 of the Report deal with very important aspects of the position of those ladies, which clearly must affect any decision on the rate.

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that widows who have forfeited the 10s. pension on remarriage receive no pension at all if they are widowed a second time less than ten years afterwards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The 10s. widow's pension is paid in respect of insurance under the former Contributory Pensions Acts, and title to it can only arise in respect of widowhood following on a marriage contracted before the repeal of those Acts in July, 1948. Women widowed since that date are eligible for the appropriate widowhood benefits of the new scheme under the conditions of that scheme. The fact that the second


marriage had not lasted ten years would not prevent the payment of widow's allowance or widowed mother's allowance and would prevent the payment of widow's pension only in some cases.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that in these cases to which he refers—and they amount to quite a number of cases —the widows who are twice bereaved are usually elderly, which means that though they have qualified once for pension they are disqualified merely because additional contributions have not been paid and that they are, therefore, being treated abominably? Will he not agree that such widows are being treated worse than any other class of widows, and look into that matter to see if something can be done for them speedily?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under a misapprehension. The pension right in respect of the original marriage is forfeited not by default of contribution but as a result of remarriage, and, therefore, such a widow is in precisely the same position as any other widow under the new scheme.

Mr. Isaacs: Can the Minister answer this question? A woman in receipt of pension marries, and then her marriage is annulled. She is not divorced: her marriage is annulled. Does that bring her into the position she was in before, or does the fact that she was married cause her to lose her pension completely?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will sympathise with me if I ask to have notice of that one.

Mr. Collins: In the case of a widow in receipt of a 10s. pension who remarries, the 10s. pension ceases. If her second husband dies before the marriage has lasted ten years there is no pension at all, not even the 10s. pension. Will the Minister put that right?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, if he has read the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, that one of the Committee's recommendations in respect of reducing the qualifying period of marriage from ten to three years would deal with a good many of the points that he has in mind.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in what year the widow's pension of 10s. was first introduced; and what is its equivalent purchasing power in terms of 1956 prices.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The answer to the first part of the Question is January, 1926, and to the second, 17s. 10d.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will remove the restrictions on the amounts which may be earned by widows without diminution of their pensions, pending his decisions on other matters affecting widow pensioners.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. These rules are now being examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in conjunction with other earnings rules and I must await their Report.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that the objections which have sometimes been stated to the alteration of the earnings rule in other cases would appear to have no validity in the case of widow pensioners?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It may well be that different principles may apply in such cases. That is the sort of point on which the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee would be most useful.

Non-Contributory Pensioners

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the introduction of a new Pensions (Increases) Act to cover people who were employed in Government service, he will take steps to improve the position of the non-contributory pensioners, many of whom have small incomes obtained through private pensions schemes and thrift.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Under the National Insurance Act, 1946, these pensions will not be issued to anyone who reaches 70 after 30th September, 1961. They are clearly of a transitional character and are paid by the National Assistance Board, which supplements them where necessary. In these circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to introduce legislation to increases these pensions.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister did not make any reference to these pensions being only of a temporary character? Is he aware that the Prime Minister said at Bradford that all people living on small fixed incomes were having a very hard time and that some action would be taken in support of them? May I ask my right hon. Friend not to eliminate the non-contributory pensioners, because I think that that is quite the wrong thing to do?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know my hon. Friend's views. I can only add that the decision that this should be of a transitional nature was taken under the Act a good many years ago, and that in fact these pensions, which are administered by the National Assistance Board, supplemented where necessary by the Board and sometimes paid on the same order as supplementary assistance, are very closely connected with assistance.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Fuel Requirements

Mr. D. Price: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what he estimates will be the total inland energy requirements of the nation in 1965, expressed in coal equivalents; and how these requirements will be divided between the main category of consumers;
(2) from what sources, and in what quantities, he estimates that the 1965 inland energy requirements of the nation will be met.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones): On the assumptions of rapid and continuous economic growth and continued progress in fuel efficiency, inland fuel requirements in 1965 might exceed 300 million tons of coal equivalent a year, of which half might be needed by industry and a quarter by households.
I am in no position to estimate with any accuracy coal output in 1965, but I would hope that at least 75 per cent. of these requirements would come from home-produced coal and 3 per cent. from nuclear power and hydro-electricity. In that case, we should have to look to oil for about 22 per cent. of our requirements.

Mr. Price: Could my right hon. Friend give a little more information as to how these coal demands will be met in view of the rather pessimistic information that has come out in recent reports?

Mr. Jones: In suggesting that we should look to coal for 75 per cent. of our requirements, I was giving a conservative estimate. My desire is to increase the output of coal as far as possible. I should like to make it perfectly clear that in so far as we cannot do that we are dependent on imported fuel, that is, oil.

Fuel-saving Appliances

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what financial inducements he is now considering to persuade domestic users to install fuel-saving heating appliances.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I am not persuaded that special financial assistance, beyond that provided for in the Clean Air Bill, would at present lead to any significant saving in the domestic use of solid fuel.

Mr. Albu: Does the Minister support the policy of removing Purchase Tax on appliances which save fuel? If that is the case, will he direct the Chancellor's attention to the fact that there is a very high level of Purchase Tax on the domestic heat pump, an apparatus which will produce three or four units of useful energy for one equivalent unit of electrical energy employed? Will he tell the Chancellor that the tax is having a very serious effect on the production of the apparatus?

Mr. Jones: I should like to have notice of that question. I am not aware that solid fuel appliances are subject to Purchase Tax.

Quality (Complaints)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what recent instructions he has given to his fuel overseers as to the advice which they tender to persons complaining about the quality of coal supplied to them.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Local fuel overseers have standing instructions to advise householders to make their complaints to their merchants between whom and the National Coal Board there is an established procedure for dealing with such complaints.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that I receive an increasing number of complaints about the poor quality of coal supplied by coal merchants in North London? Does he not agree that it is desirable that the remedies open to members of the public should be known as widely as possible?

Mr. Jones: Surely the remedies lie, first, in the relation of the customer to the retailer and, beyond that, of the retailer to the supplier.

Mr. Baldwin: Does my right hon. Friend not think it is time that domestic coal users were taken from under the wing of the fuel overseer and were allowed to buy their coal wherever they wish? Is not that the only way in which they can obtain the quality they want?

Mr. Jones: I should be delighted if I were in a position to abolish the rationing of domestic coal, but I hardly think that the supply and demand position is propitious.

Underground Conveyors (Rubber Belting)

Mr. H. Neal: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what percentage of underground conveyors in the coal mines are equipped with non-inflammable belting; and when he expects the change-over from rubber belting to be completed.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The National Coal Board estimates that by the end of last year about 45 per cent. of the total length of conveyor belting used below ground was fire resistant. I cannot say when the change-over will be completed because in certain conditions there are practical difficulties in using fire-resistant belting which have still to be overcome.

Mr. Neal: Is the Minister aware that the change-over has now been proceeding for over four years, and bearing in mind the disastrous underground fires that have taken place as a result of the use of rubber belting, would he take steps to remove any possible bottle-necks in manufacture and distribution, and expedite the use of non-inflammable belting in all mines in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Jones: In so far as I can, certainly, Sir.

Imports (Losses)

Mr. H. Neal: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what will be the extent of the loss on the sale of coal imported from the dollar area during the present coal year.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Of the order of £16 million.

Mr. Neal: Is the Minister prepared to introduce the necessary legislation for this burden to fall on the Exchequer and not on the National Coal Board?

Mr. Jones: The burden does not fall on the National Coal Board. The burden falls on the consumer. I see no reason why the Exchequer should subsidise the consumer.

Mr. Jay: Does not my hon. Friend's Question illustrate the absurdity of a situation in which the Coal Board is selling industrial coal to industry in this country at below the economic price? Why should the Coal Board go on subsidising private industry, and will the Minister seriously consider inviting the Board to raise the price of industrial coal to the economic level?

Mr. Jones: There is no distinction between industrial coal and domestic coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The same principles apply to both, and the requirement that the Coal Board shall make ends meet covers all kinds of coal.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that while I agree with what he says, and I was not questioning that, I was asking him why there should be a distinction between what industry pays for coal abroad and what it pays in this country?

Mr. Jones: To obviate that distinction would mean raising the price of coal by between £2 10s. and £2 15s. a ton. I consider that an increase of this magnitude would be so devastating and upsetting in its effects as to be entirely impracticable and unthinkable.

Mr. Jay: Is it not then rather remarkable that the Coal Board should be selling coal to British industry at £2 10s. a ton less than the economic price?

Mr. Jones: If the Coal Board were, in deference to the right hon. Gentleman's question, to raise the price of coal by between £2 10s. to £2 15s. a ton, it would


be making a gigantic surplus, which would be in contradiction to the present Statute.

Mr. B. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the loss on imported coal appears in the balance sheet of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Jones: The National Coal Board suffers no losses in respect of the import of coal, provided that the average cost is reflected in the domestic prices, and that is the case at present.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not true that until now the Socialist Party has been arguing that the nationalised industries should be used as Government agencies for reducing the cost of living to the consumer?

Capital Expenditure

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power approximately how much new capital has been invested in the coal industry since 1945.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Capital expenditure between 1947 and 1955 was about £460 million, half of it financed by borrowing.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY



1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955


Capital expenditure on new assets
£ thousand


Scottish
Not available
2,794
3,267
3,082
3,238
4,908
7,076
8,362
Not available


Northern (N. &amp; C.)
1,346
1,730
2,277
2,001
2,531
3,477
3,886


Durham
2,573
3,389
2,850
2,967
4,335
5,706
8,054


North Eastern
3,152
5,761
4,198
4,502
5,734
7,704
11,664


North Western
2,173
2,549
2,973
3,232
5,608
8,577
10,701


East Midlands
4,922
5,750
4,863
5,439
7,203
8,970
9,988


West Midlands
1,813
1,972
2,232
1,9982,984
4,509
5,570


South Western
2,127
3,210
2,921
4,290
6,349
8,061
11,411


South Eastern
182
318
379
251
436
597
1,284


GREAT BRITAIN

21,082
27,946
25,775
27,918
40,088
54,677
70,920*



Output per man per year
Tons


Scottish
282
288
288
286
287
274
271
270
265


Northern (N. &amp; C.)
251
257
264
273
273
269
280
286
287


Durham
224
233
239
245
255
250
250
253
250


North Eastern
277
287
299
314
327
324
318
326
315


North Western
225
234
240
256
265
258
259
263
265


East Midlands
371
382
397
419
446
447
442
450
451


West Midlands
287
298
305
314
326
320
309
309
308


South Western
197
207
214
226
229
229
226
230
226


South Eastern
216
240
260
287
287
274
267
253
228


GREAT BRITAIN
263
273
282
293
303
299
296
303
299

Mining Industry (Statistics)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will provide a detailed annual analysis, since nationalisation, area by area, of the improvements per man year in coal production arising from capital investment; and of earnings and voluntary absenteeism.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: With permission, I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I would ask my hon. Friend when she studies the table to bear in mind that no valid conclusions can be drawn from a simple comparison of capital expenditure and output per man in any particular year, for much of the expenditure is on projects that take time to complete and can show results only after some years.

Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his undertaking, which at any rate makes progress in letting the country know what advantages we may obtain in increased coal production by the capital expenditure involved? I think it is a very good idea to go forward with this matter.

Following is the table:

1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955


Average weekly cash earnings {excluding value of allowances in kind)
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Scottish
135
6
162
7
170
2
174
3
190
7
214
5
222
4
234
5
240
11§


Northern (N. &amp; C.).
131
10
154
0
169
3
177
5
194
7
213
8
218
3
233
11
242
2§


Durham
172
3
192
3
213
5
218
5
228
10
239
3§


North Eastern
131
11
161
0
166
10
174
7
194
10
215
3
221
8
233
3
240
0§


North Western
131
7
149
7
154
8
164
5
188
10
208
0
215
3
226
8
235
10§


East Midlands
150
1
169
6
186
5
196
4
218
8
238
1
245
8
263
5
270
7§


West Midlands
128
4
149
10
162
9
171
0
192
5
212
0
215
1
227
8
236
9§


South Western
123
3
149
7
155
7
162
10
183
9
203
8
211
1
225
3
233
6§


South Eastern
135
5
158
10
178
1
189
3
215
2
237
11
245
4
254
0
260
2§


GREAT BRITAIN
133
0
157
1
167
6‡
174
8
195
1
215
7
222
0
235
1
243
2§


Voluntary Absence percen-tage




















Scoltish
4·67
4·85
5·04
4·89
4·86
5·17
3·49
3·58
3·72


Northern (N. &amp; C.)
4·04
3·01
2·63
2·60
2·71
2·76
1·85
1·75
1·85


Durham
3·85
3·08
2·78
2·64
2·62
2·75
1·49
1·37
1·39


North Eastern
8·95
8·73
7·37
6·97
7·67
8·42
5·60
5·06
4·94


North Western
7·52
6·47
5·74
5·74
8·44
8·00
4·99
4·99
5·24


East Midlands
7·33
6·95
6·18
5·76
5·92
6·13
5·76
5·31
5·48


West Midlands
9·79
9·29
8·29
6·91
7·11
7·25
6·83
6·22
6·52


South Western
4·86
4·78
4·65
4·52
5·15
5·59
3·56
3·46
3·73


South Eastern
11·99
8·41
6·97
6·10
6·68
7·61
5·46
4·76
5·10


GREAT BRITAIN
6·46
603
5·43
5·10
5·62
5·93
4·26¶
4·01
4·12


* Includes about £250 thousand for second hand plant, machinery and vehicles.


† From the beginning of 1954 a uniform definition of colliery activities was introduced. The effect of the change on average output per man per year for Great Britain was to increase it by about 2 tons.


‡ In 1949 and subsequently the figures are calculated on a revised basis which resulted in an increase in average weekly earnings of approximately 3 per cent, for all workers.


§ First 9 months only.


¶ Since the beginning of 1953 the figures relate only to mines operated by the National Coal Board which account for 99 per cent, of the total output. From the beginning of 1954 a uniform definition of colliery activities was introduced; this resulted in a reduction which in 1953 amounted to 0–73 for Great Britain. The 1953 figures have been given on the new basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Expenditure

Mr. Whitelaw: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what consultations he has had with the Central Electricity Authority about reduction in their boards' capital expenditure.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in his review of the planned capital expenditure of the Central Electricity Authority in conformity with the present economic policy of the Government.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: In recent discussions with the Authority, I asked them to let me know the effects of a further

reduction of capital expenditure in the financial year 1956–57, additional to that proposed in response to my predecessor's request to them last year, and I am now considering their report.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the area electricity boards are making extremely heavy cuts at present in their rural electrification programmes which, they state, are due to Government policy?

Mr. Jones: I should like to give a clear assurance that in any re-phasing or reduction in the capital expenditure of the Central Electricity Authority, no disproportionate effect will be felt by rural electrification.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman say clearly whether or not it is the Government's policy that rural electrification shall be cut down?

Mr. Jones: It is the policy of the Government to alleviate the general load on the economy. In the light of that policy, I cannot promise that rural electrification will be completely exempted, but I will give the very firmest promise that there will be no disproportionate cut.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it was last July that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his important statement on the rearrangement of economic policy? Is he aware that for the last seven months my hon. Friends and myself have been trying to find out what contribution is to be made by the Central Electricity Authority? Can my right hon. Friend say why the chairman of the Authority put into print in the newspapers last week that he proposed to save £8 million out of his programme whereas the Minister is not in a position to give such information to the House?

Mr. Jones: All I can say in reply to my right hon. Friend——

Hon. Members: Honourable.

Mr. Jones: I am clearly anticipating events to come. I should like to make it clear that there has been no decision with regard to the capital expenditure of the Central Electricity Authority in the year 1956–57.

Cross-Channel Cable (Report)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made to date in the laying of a subterranean cross-Channel electricity cable to link certain power installations of the Central Electricity Authority with those of Electricité de France; and whether he will state prospects for a permanent installation to exchange marginal peak load needs.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I am informed that the experimental work both in this country and in France has now been virtually completed. The technical experts are preparing a report which it is hoped will be submitted to the respective electricity authorities this summer.

Retail Trading

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what part of the moneys authorised by him in respect of new investment and borrowing powers for the nationalised electrical industry during 1955–56 is to be used for such commercial and sales promotional activities as appliance stocks and sales, including television and radio sets and other retail trading excluding generating, distribution and sale of electricity.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: For hire purchase less than 2 per cent. of total capital requirements, and negligible amounts for the other activities mentioned.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, Sir, but would my right hon. Friend apply himself to the problem of the nationalised electricity industry now devoting increasing sums of money year by year to purely sales promotional activities of all these accessories and appliances? Why should the Treasury guarantee capital for enterprises of that kind, which are only at the expense of the area boards' private enterprise competitors?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend must not assume that I am not applying my mind to the problems of the Central Electricity Authority. Indeed, it may interest him to know that I am granting no new finance to the Central Electricity Authority for hire-purchase purposes for the financial year 1956 to 1957.

Electricity Supply Industry (Report)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what discussions he is having with the Central Electricity Authority and the area electricity boards on the recommendations of the Herbert Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I have asked the Authority and each board to let me have by the end of this month their views on the recommendations dealing with the statutory structure of the industry and certain other matters of national policy, and later to supplement these views with any observations they may wish to make on other aspects of the Report.

Mr. Palmer: May I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman? In view of the publication of this controversial


report, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is desirable that industry should not be left too long in suspense as to the intentions of the Government? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if he proposes changes he will take into consultation all the bodies and interests concerned, particularly the employees in the industry?

Mr. Jones: I am in entire agreement with the first part of the question. I recognise that the fact of this report means great uncertainty for the industry, and I am most anxious to clear away that uncertainty as quickly as possible. With regard to the second part of the question, I have already given an assurance that I will take into account the views expressed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Natural Gas Supplies

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what success has been achieved in the exploration of natural gas in Great Britain; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: At Cousland in Midlothian and Heathfield in Sussex, where the presence of gas has been known for many years, the trial wells have not so far yielded gas in quantities sufficient for commercial production. Two wells in Ashdown Forest have similarly yielded only small quantities of gas. Attention is at present being concentrated chiefly on Yorkshire where work has begun on a deep well at Hunmanby, north-west of Bridlington.

Mr. Roberts: Is the search for natural gas being intensified?

Mr. Jones: The programme set out for itself by the Gas Council was a five-year programme. Since only between two and three years have elapsed, it is premature to draw final conclusions.

Oil (Use)

Mr. Neal: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent oil is being used to make up the deficiency between coal production and demand.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: In 1955 total inland consumption of fuel amounted to 250 million tons of coal equivalent. Of

this over 214 million tons was met by coal and nearly a million by hydro-electricity. The deficiency of 35 million tons was met by oil.

Gas and Electricity Workers (Pensions)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the publication of the Pensions (Increase) Bill proposing an improvement in the pensions of various classes of public servants, he will make a statement on a comparable improvement in pension schemes taken over under the Electricity Act, 1947, and the Gas Act, 1948.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Responsibility for reviewing pension schemes and initiating any changes rests with the boards.

Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor gave me an assurance in this House that the rates of pensions of electricity and gas pensioners are being looked at, and is not his present answer a contradiction of the answer I received in this House from his predecessor?

Mr. Jones: I cannot be aware of what my predecessor has said on that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I understand it was said privately, which is a different matter. However, as I understand the position, the Central Electricity Authority has submitted proposals adjusting pensions in the light of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952. Those are now before me and, in due course, I shall give judgment, but that has nothing to do with the new Pensions (Increase) Bill.

Mr. Palmer: In the light of that answer, can I expect from the right hon. Gentleman a statement on this important matter quite soon?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir. The responsibility for initiating any pensions changes rests entirely with the boards. I have responsibility for approving changes submitted by them, but the initiation must rest with them.

Dame Irene Ward: Why is it that the Minister of Transport has power in certain circumstances to make regulations? Am I to understand that my right hon. Friend has not got similar powers? If not, will he seek them, in view of the Prime Minister's speech at Bradford about the small fixed income groups?

Mr. Jones: I am not answerable for the Minister or Ministry of Transport. I can only speak from my own limitations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Aircraft Noise (Silencers)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will take steps to assist British aircraft manufacturers to acquire the silencer for jet aircraft produced by the Boeing Airplane Company; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll): So
far as I am aware, the Boeing silencer follows the design of a silencer developed by Rolls-Royce under contract with the Ministry of Supply. Flight tests of the Rolls-Royce silencer will start shortly; meanwhile, details of the Rolls-Royce design have been made available to other firms in the British aircraft industry.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While I thank my hon. Friend for his Answer, may I ask him to encourage manufacturers of jet aircraft to fit the Rolls-Royce silencer, as that will give a great deal of satisfaction to those who live around London Airport?

Mr. Erroll: It is a complicated design matter, but all firms are fully aware of the importance of trying to reduce the noise of aircraft by every means at their disposal.

Aircraft and Guided Missiles (Contracts)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply on what basis, whether on cost-plus or otherwise, his Department allocates contracts for the development and production of guided missiles.

Mr. Erroll: The Ministry of Supply makes fixed-price contracts whenever possible but contracts for development are usually paid for on the basis of ascertained cost, plus a sum calculated to give a reasonable return on the capital employed.

Mr. Beswick: As very little of the capital employed is contributed by outside shareholders and most of it has accumulated from previous Government contracts or has been borrowed on the

basis of Government contracts awarded, and as production seems to be in inverse ratio to the profits now made, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a case for looking into the matter again?

Mr. Erroll: I do not agree with the statements made by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question. Capital should be serviced, and the rates at which it is serviced in these contracts are extremely reasonable.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of recently-announced profits of firms engaged in the manufacture of aircraft and guided missiles for his Department, he is satisfied that the margin of profit allowed for individual contracts are reasonable; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Erroll: The total published profits of a firm are not necessarily a guide to the profit earned on its Government work. Where competitive tenders cannot be invited, profit margins on Ministry contracts are negotiated in accordance with well-established principles designed to give a reasonable return on capital employed.

Mr. Beswick: As the profits of one firm engaged largely upon Government contracts have risen from £656,000 in 1951 to £2,159,000 in 1955, and those of another have risen from £6 million to £15 million over the same period, is the hon. Gentleman really of the opinion that the rewards are reasonable? Will he not look into the formula used in giving profits?

Mr. Erroll: The formula which is used has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee and approved by it in its 1953–54 Report. With regard to the second of the two companies referred to, I would point out that the figures of Canadian Income Tax paid by the firm and published by it show that a very substantial part of its profit was earned in Canada.

Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the production of operational aircraft is commensurate with the size of the profits?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir, reasonably so.

Mr. D. Price: In considering the formula, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that gross profit figures unrelated to turnover and capital are most misleading?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. One must distinguish between profit expressed as a percentage of issued capital and profit expressed as a percentage of production, for they are two very different things.

Long-range Aircraft (Development)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in the Government-sponsored design of an aircraft for British Overseas Airways Corporation long-range routes in the 1964–66 era.

Mr. Erroll: An outline specification for such an aircraft has been prepared by the Ministry of Supply in collaboration with British Overseas Airways Corporation, and manufacturers have been invited to submit design studies for consideration.

Mr. Beswick: Are we to take it that the Bristol project, which until recently we understood was to be in conjunction with American firms, is now to be an all-British effort? If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman accept the statement that every hon. Member in the House would wish such an undertaking well?

Mr. Erroll: I believe that that is so, judging from the announcement published by the Bristol Aeroplane Company, which is at present being studied by my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON AND OTTAWA (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister the outcome of his discussions with President Eisenhower regarding the suspension or limitation of hydrogen bomb tests.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement I shall be making in a few minutes.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will deal adequately with this important matter in his statement? I ask him this because there was no mention of it at all in the communiqué and the declaration.

The Prime Minister: I am certainly not prepared to give any undertaking that the hon. Gentleman's definition of "adequately" and mine are the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Pigs (Marketing)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the marketing of pigs.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): The Reorganisation Commission is at work on this problem and I cannot anticipate its Report. Officials of my Department are at present discussing with the Farmers' Unions the guarantee arrangements for pigs for the next guarantee year.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Report is likely to be received, because the country has been waiting for it for an extremely long time? Will he bear in mind that what is required is a scheme for the pig industry similar to the deficiency payments scheme for wheat? Will he do everything he can at the earliest possible date to bring real stability to the industry?

Mr. Amory: I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Reorganisation Commission has yet had an excessive period in which to do its work. It was appointed about six months ago, and has been hard at work since. I am sure that all concerned with this difficult problem would do well to await its Report. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, my hon. and gallant Friend will know that very conflicting views are passionately held about the best future pattern for pig marketing. I will note my hon. and gallant Friend's view.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all concerned are sick of and fed up with the present persistent muddle, and that it is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is awaiting the Report of the Reorganisation Commission? What is wanted is immediate action now.

Mr. Amory: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the producers have the very sure safeguard of the guaranteed price behind them.

Bread Subsidy

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount of the bread subsidy to the latest


available date for the present financial year.

Mr. Amory: It would be misleading to give the amount of cash paid to date as this is subject to adjustment in the light of the movement of flour prices over the year and of the regular periodical costings investigations.
For the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate for 1955–56 published on 6th February, the bread subsidy was estimated to cost £38·5 million.

Mr. Willey: While I appreciate the reply, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present rumours that he intends to abolish or slash the bread subsidy are equally misleading?

Mr. Amory: That does not arise on this Question.

Sugar Refining Agreement

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available to hon. Members copies of the Sugar Refining Agreement, 1937, and the modification of the agreement made in 1953, by placing them in the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. Amory: Copies of both documents are already in the Library.

Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, of which I was not previously aware; but will he take this opportunity to tell the House whether or not it is the Government's intention to proceed with its miserable Measure?

Mr. Amory: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the documents in the Library include his definition of "foodstuffs," and whether the definition includes fish?

Mr. Amory: The documents deal with sugar, and not fish.

Food Stocks

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what trading stocks of foodstuffs are at present held by his Department.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my

hon. Friend on 30th January. The position is unchanged except that the small stock of milk powder held at that date has since been disposed of.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the difficulties facing the Government in disposing of these commercial stocks, and can he also tell us what the current rate of loss is?

Mr. Amory: The stocks are being disposed of steadily, and I know of no particular difficulties confronting the Government in the process.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the second point that I put to him? Will he not agree that it is certainly disturbing that the Government are apparently finding it so difficult to dispose of the stocks, particularly when they are evidently disposing of them at such a great loss?

Mr. Amory: I cannot agree with either of the assumptions made by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Expenditure (Returns)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Health the reasons for requiring quarterly returns from regional hospital boards of capital expenditure.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): To keep my Department informed of the progress of work under the hospital building programme.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to keep in some control his Department's insatiable appetite for information, much of which may be very unreliable and misleading, since these quarterly returns are far too frequent?

Mr. Turton: These returns are very important, and enable me to know what work is actually being done so that I can keep some control over the hospitals' capital programme.

Appeals

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Health if he will review the procedure on the hearing of appeals from decisions of regional hospital boards by regional appeals committees.

Mr. Turton: Any such review would be a matter in the first place for the General Whitley Council. I would refer my hon. Friend to the recommendation in paragraph 222 of the Report of the Guillebaud Committee which is under consideration and which, if implemented, will remove the difficulties my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is a matter of dispute of some two years' standing whereby a decision is made by the regional hospitals board and on appeal the regional hospital board is entirely disregarded and that it is only a matter of permission that it can even give evidence? This has already caused considerable discontent to regional hospital boards all over the country. Will my right hon. Friend look at this question as a matter of urgency, because these boards are trying to make the Service work?

Mr. Turton: I appreciate the difficulty; but it must be remembered that the adoption of the recommendation that the detailed control over staffing establishments should be relaxed as far as and as fast as possible would remove the difficulty.

Bronchitis (Treatment)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health whether he will give an estimate of the number of cases of bronchitis attending as out-patients at the hospitals under his direction which would be benefited by in-patient treatment; and whether he will make clear to regional boards that staffed wards in sanatoria for tuberculosis may, with advantage, be used for this purpose.

Mr. Turton: I am afraid I cannot form any useful or reliable estimate of the kind mentioned in the first part of the Question but the suggestion in the second part is being considered by my Standing Medical Advisory Committee.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not obvious that it will be much better to treat chronic bronchitis, which is such a wasteful disease so far as work is concerned, in the fresh open air of sanatoria rather than in people's homes? Will he not give special consideration to this point himself?

Mr. Turton: I will give special attention to that consideration, but it is surely proper for me to get the advice of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, which is considering this especial problem.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the high incidence of chronic bronchitis in our industrial towns, will the Minister not agree that there is a degree of social responsibility involved in the matter, and that his Department should therefore associate itself more directly with the treatment for which my hon. Friend quite rightly asks?

Mr. Turton: There is no dispute about this. What we are doing at the moment is to get reports from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Medical Research Council on this problem of bronchitis. I hope to get these reports in a reasonable time, and when I have got them, I will see what action can be taken.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist proposals to close down beds in sanatoria until he has got these reports of which he speaks?

Mr. Turton: That does not seem to arise from this Question.

Mental Hospitals, Manchester and Liverpool

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he has now studied the facts placed before him by the deputations from eleven management committees of mental hospitals in the Manchester and Liverpool regions which he received on 17th January; and what action he intends to take to meet their difficulties;
(2) when he proposes to visit mental hospitals in the North-West in order to study at first hand the difficulties with which the mental hospitals in the region are faced.

Mr. Turton: I have studied with care the facts placed before me by the deputation, and I am proposing to visit some of the mental and mental deficiency hospitals in the Liverpool and Manchester regions at the earliest possible opportunity to see something of their problems at first hand.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will give


no kind of comfort to the area, because the situation is so urgent that the right hon. Gentleman should have come to the House this afternoon and said, "I am going next week"? Is he not aware that the earliest possible opportunity from his point of view may not be the earliest desirable opportunity from the point of view of the staffs and management committees who are dealing with a really desperate situation in the area, and who appealed to him for immediate action a month ago and had nothing from him since?

Mr. Turton: As I hope to go this week, it would be unwise to say that I am going next week.

Dr. Summerskill: Is it not unfortunate that it will go out to the North that the Minister has treated this matter lightly? Is he aware that this is a very serious matter, and that the trouble has been caused as a direct result of the strain to which these mental nurses have been exposed for many years? When the Minister goes to the North, will he not only go to mental deficiency hospitals, but realise that although mental deficiency hospitals have difficulties, they are not commensurate with those experienced in the mental hospitals? Will he assure the House that he will go to mental hospitals as well?

Mr. Turton: There is no question of treating this matter lightly. I said last week that I regarded it as of deep concern. I have said today that I have studied the matter with care. As the right hon. Lady knows, it is not easy for a Minister to spend a lot of time visiting hospitals. I am trying to get around as much as possible. This week I am going to one mental hospital and one mental deficiency hospital in the Manchester region.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

National Health Service (Report)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he intends to adopt the recommendation of the Guille-baud Committee that regional boards should no longer be required to submit capital development schemes of less than £50,000 for prior approval by his Department;
(2) what conclusions he has reached on the recommendations of the Guille-baud Committee on Whitley Council machinery in the National Health Service; and if he will consider the setting up of a separate Whitley Council for mental nurses.

Mr. Turton: As I indicated on 25th January, I do not intend to reach conclusions on recommendations made by the Guillebaud Committee until I have consulted with the interests concerned, such as hospital authorities and the Whitley Councils.

Mr. Robinson: In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, will
he give particular attention to these two recommendations, both of which are extremely important?

Mr. Turton: I appreciate that both these recommendations are of importance, and they will be carefully studied with the interests concerned.

Art Therapists (Pay)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered representations made to him on the subject of the remuneration of art therapists in the National Health Service; and what conclusion he has reached.

Mr. Turton: I am considering these representations, which reached me this month, but I have not yet reached any conclusion.

Mr. Robinson: Can the Minister give any idea when he will come to that conclusion, since his predecessor told me about two months before the right hon. Gentleman took office that he was giving consideration to this problem?

Mr. Turton: These proposals reached me only on 1st February. I will give them urgent consideration, but I cannot give a date.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Corporal Punishment (Women)

Mr. Benn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why a group of Bamangwato women were recently flogged in Bechuanaland; what offences they were charged with; by whom they were tried: under what authority such punishments


are authorised; by whom and where and under whose supervision the sentences were carried out; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): In December, 1955, at Gweta, two women who were involved in a drunken brawl assaulted a tribal policeman and subsequently insulted the Subordinate Native Authority in his kgotla. The Subordinate Native Authority ordered the two women to receive two strokes each. The sentence was imposed under Section 13 of the Bechuanaland Protectorate Native Courts Proclamation and was administered in kgotla according to native law and custom.
The Native Authority had already prohibited corporal punishment of women and he has been asked to remind all his subordinates again that corporal punishment should not be administered to women.

Mr. Benn: I am sure that the House will receive the latter part of the Under-Secretary's statement with satisfaction. Will he give an assurance that there has been no more recent example of this, as a few days ago there were reputable Press reports suggesting that another incident had occurred more recently?

Commander Noble: I am not aware of more cases recently, and the Press reports probably referred to the case in question.

Bamangwato Reserve (Disturbance)

Mr. Benn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the recent disturbances in Bechuanaland.

Commander Noble: There have been no recent disturbances in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. There was, however, a minor disturbance at a village in the Bamangwato Reserve last November. There has been no further trouble.

Mr. Benn: Can the Minister explain how it is that such reputatble newspapers as the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mirror should both have reported very recently that there were disturbances in Bechuanaland? Will he please look again at this matter and, when looking

at it again, recognise that the Bamangwato will never be at peace until Seretse Khama is returned as chief?

Commander Noble: While not accepting the implication of the latter part of the supplementary question, perhaps I may give roughly the same answer to the hon. Gentleman as to his previous Question, that perhaps these reports which he has quoted were referring to the disturbance which I quoted last November.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

W.D. Stores, Bicester (Sale)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of hammers and paint brushes disposed of at the surplus goods sale at Bicester on 8th February; how the average sale price per article compared with the cost price; why they were not retained in stock for future use; and the reasons for the precautions taken in respect of the use of cameras and the admission of the Press.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): There were 1.675 hammers and 10,820 oil brushes which were part of the equipment of the obsolete Polsten machine gun. The average sale price of the hammers was 1s. 3d. each and that of the oil brushes 7½d. We do not know how much was actually paid for these articles when they were purchased early in the war, but it was almost certainly less than the present replacement prices of 1s. 8d. and 1s. 2d., respectively. They were not retained in; stock because no future military use for them could be foreseen. Press representatives could attend the sale in the same way as members of the general public. For security reasons, it is normal practice not to allow photographs to be taken in military stores' depots.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officer commanding said he had orders not to allow the Press into the sale? Will he explain how hammers can be obsolete, or is it that these are left-handed hammers and cannot be used by right-handed men?

Mr. Maclean: My information is that the Press were allowed to attend the sale in the same way as any other members of the public. If the hon. Member says that the commanding officer gave specific instructions, I will certainly look into that


point. As to the hammers, they were part of the tool equipment of the Polsien machine gun, and I do not think that they would have been useful for ordinary purposes.

BURGESS AND MACLEAN (STATEMENT)

Mr. H. Morrison(by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the appearance of Messrs. Burgess and Maclean in Moscow.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. I have certain comments to make on the appearance of these two men and their Press conference. First, it brings out into clear relief the consistent lack of candour of the Soviet authorities in their statements about these men. In addition to what had appeared in the Soviet Press, suggesting that the whole story was Western anti-Soviet propaganda, in October of last year before the debate in the House about the two men, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Mr. Molotov in Geneva for information about them. Mr. Molotov said that he was quite unable to provide any.
As recently as 12th January, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) saw Mr. Khrushchev, he put the same question. Mr. Khrushchev was reported to have replied, "Are they in our country, then? I have not heard anything of them from any Soviet officials, nor have I ever met them, so it stands to reason I cannot know what they are doing."
The House must form its own opinion about the veracity of those statements in view of this latest development. This kind of conduct shows how difficult it is to establish the relations of mutual trust which the Soviet Union profess so much to desire.
The second comment I have to make is with regard to the contents of the statement itself. The House will have noted that it is designed to be used for propaganda purposes and that the two men were not permitted to answer any questions. In fact, no credence can be placed in their word. There is nothing in the statement which causes me to modify that view.
My third comment is that there has been a certain amount of speculation as to the reasons which have led the Soviet Government to change their ground and to announce, through this interview, the presence of these men in Moscow. One view is that it was to forestall awkward questions during the visit of the Soviet leaders to this country and to clear the air. That may be so.
Another view is that after the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself to Washington, and the close accord we reached with the United States Government on so many matters, the Soviet authorities wished to create distrust and to drive a wedge. If this is the explanation, they will not succeed.

Mr. Morrison: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there was anything to prevent the resignation from the Foreign Service of these two persons and their conducting propaganda on the lines of their opinions in our own country? May I also ask him whether it is not a fact that during the war, and since, all British Governments have sought the most friendly relations with the Soviet Union in the cause of peace? Finally, may I ask whether there is now any evidence that these two men were agents acting on behalf of a foreign Power or the Communist Party?

Mr. Lloyd: It is a fact that there is nothing to prevent anyone in the Foreign Service from resigning and conducting such propaganda in this country. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman s second question, the answer is definitely that, in my view, all Governments since the war have sought most genuinely to seek improved relations with the Soviet Union.
As to whether there is any evidence that these men were Soviet agents, suspicion of the person responsible for a known leakage of information to the Soviet authorities was, as was stated in the White Paper, narrowed down to Maclean before he departed. This was confirmed by his departure and, subsequently, by what Petrov has said. No suspicion attached to Burgess before his departure, but strong suspicion fell on him when he departed, and that, also, has been confirmed by what Petrov has said.

Sir J. Hutchison: Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if their


statements are correct, it is disquieting that two men, who confessed that while they were at Cambridge they were members of the Communist Party, should both subsequently be employed in the Foreign Service and that one of them should be employed in the B.B.C. and the Secret Service? Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that the steps taken as a result of the Privy Councillors' examination would stop a repetition of that possibility, if it be true?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept what my hon. Friend said about the employment of these men. The employment of Burgess is described in the White Paper. On the question of the future employment in the Foreign Service of such men, I think, as was indicated in the debate in the House, that adequate steps have been taken. The Report of the Conference of Privy Councillors is not, I think, a matter for me.

Mr. Daines: May I ask whether the Foreign Secretary noticed in the statement from Moscow that Burgess claims to have served in the Secret Service and M.I.5? Is that correct or incorrect?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that is exactly what Burgess claimed. The fact is that he was employed in a Department which, at the outbreak of war, dealt with propaganda to neutral countries. It was an organisation which later came to be known as S.O.E.

Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise how welcome his clear statement will be in proving beyond doubt that the ludicrous pantomime which was staged in Moscow will gain them nothing?

Mr. Morrison: Arising out of these exchanges, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any intention or otherwise of making a statement to the House on the report of the Conference of Privy Councillors on the Secret Service?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues for the Report which they have been good enough to present to me. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it reached me the night before I left for Washington. However, I have given it careful study and we are now engaged in considering the steps to be taken to give

effect to it. I hope to be able to make a statement upon it in due course but, as the right hon. Gentleman would understand, and all concerned would agree, I should not be prepared to make the Report public.

WASHINGTON AND OTTAWA (DISCUSSIONS)

The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to report on the discussions which I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary have held recently in Washington and in Ottawa.
The House will recall the situation at the time when these visits were arranged last autumn. The Geneva Conference of Foreign Ministers had disappointed hopes that some at least of the problems facing us might have been solved in the spirit of the July meetings. However, the Soviet Government had made it clear at the October meeting that it had no intention of allowing the German people as a whole to decide their future by free elections.
More surprising was the fact that the Soviets refused to lower the artificial barriers which still prevent the free flow of visitors and ideas between the countries of the Western world and the Soviet bloc. In the Middle East, we were faced with intervention by the Soviet Government in the shape of the Czechoslovak-Egyptian arms deal.
In these circumstances, it seemed timely to the President of the United States and myself that we should meet to discuss the world situation together. I was, therefore, very glad that the President's recovery enabled him to invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself to be his guests in Washington. I will now make some detailed points on the discussions.
As regards Europe, we are in complete agreement that Germany, whose division is the main cause of the present tension, should be given the opportunity to reunite in freedom. We reaffirmed our obligations towards Berlin. We were in agreement on the principle of support costs and the equal sharing of the burden of defence between Allies. Discussions are proceeding on this subject with the


Federal German Government. We discussed various projects for closer association in Western Europe, and I indicated our desire to press ahead, in particular, with the arms control programme within the Western European Union.
The Middle East was our chief cause of concern. Within that area the dispute between Israel and her Arab neighbours comes first in difficulty and urgency. Obviously, efforts towards reaching a settlement between the parties must be pursued in secrecy. But the House can be sure that they will also be prosecuted in unison by the United States Government and ourselves.
Of course, any settlement must involve some compromise, but there is nothing dishonourable about a compromise. We and the United States Government, as we have repeatedly stated, are also ready to help financially and to guarantee agreed frontiers.
Meanwhile, we must continue to try to reduce tension in the area. Doubt about action by the Powers concerned under the Tripartite Declaration can itself be a cause of tension. We discussed this and found ourselves in complete agreement as to our obligations under this Declaration. We decided to invite the French Government to join with us in considering how to carry them out should the need arise. The French Government have accepted our invitation and the three Governments are now examining together the nature of the action they might have to take.
The second method of reducing tension is to increase the strength of General Burns's organisation. Here, our intention has always been to work through the United Nations organisation. Both the United States and ourselves will be ready to support any recommendations to this end by General Burns and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
We discussed the situation in Arabia and the Persian Gulf. My right hon. and learned Friend and I made clear that in the matter of Buraimi, Her Majesty's Government, acting for the Sultan of Muscat and Oman and the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, could not return to arbitration after their experience of Saudi Arabian behaviour. We should, however, be glad to restore friendly

relations with the Government of Saudi Arabia, and are ready to enter into direct negotiations with them for this purpose.
We also discussed the general economic situation in the Middle East. The United States Government reaffirmed their solid support for the Bagdad Pact. The reports that we were at odds with the Americans on this issue have no foundation in fact, like many others. We are both agreed that the Pact can be used most helpfully for the benefit of the populations of the member countries.
We reaffirmed our support of S.E.A.T.O. In the Far East, as elsewhere, our aims are to deter aggression, whether by force or by subversion, and to enable the countries of the area to develop in security and peace. There have been and are certain differences between us about Far Eastern policy. We discussed these together. We have not receded from our position, nor, it is fair to say, have the United States Government modified theirs.
However, as to the trade issue, the control of trade in strategic materials with China will now be reviewed. We hope that proposals to this end will be brought before the China Committee of the Paris Consultative Group in due course. It was decided that, in examining the scope of each control, the test should be the extent to which it serves the interests of the free world.
In the nuclear field, the House may recall that certain Agreements were concluded between our two Governments last June. We are both well satisfied with the way the exchange of information is now working under those Agreements and with the results which they are giving to us.
We also discussed the question of the possible regulation or limitation of nuclear weapon tests. As regards the effect of tests, the House will perhaps recall that a special Committee appointed by the Medical Research Council is still examining whether these give rise to any appreciable hazard. A similar examination is taking place in the United States. But I am bound to report that Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government at present share the conviction that the radiation dose to human beings arising from the testing of megaton weapons at the present rate is


insignificant compared with the radiation dose received from natural causes.
Finally, as regards the Washington talks, I want to report to the House with the greatest pleasure how much my right hon. and learned Friend and I were impressed by the renewed vigour and enduring friendship of the President of the United States.
At Ottawa, we were able to report on all these discussions to the Canadian Government. The Prime Minister, M. St. Laurent, expressed publicly his pleasure at their successful outcome. Intimate talks between two nations of the Commonwealth require no communique and no commentary. We went item by item with the Canadian Ministers through the results of our Washington discussions, and we were in complete accord. We also discussed matters of direct Anglo-Canadian interest, including the most helpful part which Canada is playing on the Commissions in South-East Asia. We spoke of trade and of the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
I have not yet referred to the Declaration signed by the President and myself. This is a restatement of principles which have been affirmed many times in this House, and from both sides of it. We do not contend that there is anything novel about it. No, Sir, but- it must be remembered that it will not only be read in the sophisticated and news-hungry West, but that it is designed also to bring comfort and hope to people in many other areas of the world. The reptition of Anglo-American agreement is better than banner headlines about discord between us.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister has made a long statement, and although it does not add very much to what has already been published in the Press, we shall, naturally, want to study it. I would, ask him, first, whether the Government will find time for a debate on foreign affairs at the earliest possible moment? Meanwhile, I should like to put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman. The first concerns his remarks on the agreement between ourselves and the United States on the principle of support costs and the equal sharing of the burden of defence between Allies.
Will the Prime Minister be kind enough to explain a little more fully what those phrases mean? Does he mean, by "equal sharing of the burden," that each country should be devoting the same proportion of its national income to defence, or that a higher proportion should be devoted to defence by the wealthier countries? What precisely has he in mind in relation to the Federal Government of Germany? Is it not a fact—we are told so by the newspapers, at any rate—that the Federal Government do not seem to have accepted this principle at all? In that connection, will he say whether we are discussing jointly with the United States this question of the Federal Government? Are the negotiations bilateral, or taking
place in N.A.T.O.? In what form are they taking place?
The second matter upon which I want to press the Prime Minister relates to his remarks about the Tripartite Declaration. I cannot but feel that when he said that "doubt about action by the Powers concerned … can itself be a cause of tension" he did not fully apply that principle in making this statement. Why did he say that we are ready to help to guarantee agreed frontiers? Does that in any way diminish our obligation under the Tripartite Declaration to go to the assistance of any country attacked across the present frontiers? The right hon. Gentleman stated that we were in agreement with the United States about our obligations. Can he tell us exactly what was agreed between the United States and ourselves upon this subject?
Thirdly, in view of the Prime Minister's earlier statements that the Tripartite Declaration involved the principle of maintaining the balance of arms, was that subject discussed at Washington and, if so, what conclusions were reached between ourselves and the United States?

The Prime Minister: First, with regard to support costs, no new principle was enunciated, nor have I enunciated one in anything that I have said this afternoon. Ever since N.A.T.O. existed it has always been an accepted practice between us—if not a principle—to share the burdens together. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct about the Federal Government of Germany. Discussions are proceeding, and are being carried on upon a quadrupartite basis, that is to say, the three Western Powers—the United States,


France and ourselves—are discussing the matter with the Federal German Government. It is in that connection that I referred to the matter.
With regard to the Middle East, the right hon. Gentleman asked, first, whether anything I said was intended to withdraw from our obligations under the 1950 Agreement. Certainly not; the obligations of the 1950 Agreement include armistice lines. What I am referring to are agreed frontiers which might be reached at the conclusion of a settlement. Meanwhile, until a settlement is concluded, we remain bound by the 1950 Declaration.
Finally, on the question whether we could have made the position clearer in order to reduce tension, in relation to the action we could take, the right hon. Gentleman and the House will know that constitutional practices are not the same in all countries. Quite frankly, those practices being what they are, I do not think that we could have got the Declaration any clearer than it was.
I have no further statement to make at present about the balance of armaments.

Mr. Gaitskell: Was that question discussed with the United States?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr. Gaitskell: Were there any discussions about plans for economic aid for underdeveloped areas, through the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: Apart from the general Middle Eastern position, which we were discussing and which I have described, I do not think that there were any special discussions in that connection.

Mr. C. Davies: As it is obvious that there must be a debate relating to these matters, can the Prime Minister say, for the convenience of hon. Members, whether a White Paper will be issued containing the joint Declaration and, at the same time—as they will be relevant —copies of the letters from Russia to the President of the United States, and the President's replies? They will all form part of the matter to be debated.

The Prime Minister: I should be quite ready to do so, and the White Paper might include one or two other documents. As regards the exchanges which have taken place between the United

States and Russia, I should have to obtain consent. I will look into the matter and see whether I can do so.

Mr. Shinwell: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to elucidate one point upon which some misapprehension may exist. He appeared to say that the three Governments who are signatories to the Tripartite Declaration were about to proceed to examine the situation. Does that mean that they propose to examine the situation in order to decide what they ought to do, in terms of the Declaration, in the event of aggression by any Middle Eastern country—or that they propose to take positive action in order to prevent any aggression taking place? At the same time, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his discussions with President Eisenhower, the question arose of the provision of arms to Arab countries and, in particular, why it is that while arms are being supplied to Egypt and other Arab countries there is a refusal to supply arms to Israel?

The Prime Minister: The words were rather carefully chosen. As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman—and I am sure he knows this—constitutional processes in our country and in the United States are different in respect of some of these matters. That is why the words were carefully chosen. The sentence reads:
Accordingly, we have made arrangements for joint discussions as to the nature of the action which we should take in such an event.
In view of the constitutional position, that is about as definite as any statement can be.

Mr. Shinwell: It will be action after aggression.

The Prime Minister: Yes—that is, under the 1950 Declaration. We do not want to start knocking them over the head before, do we?

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not what I meant. Is any positive action to be taken by the signatories to the Tripartite Declaration to prevent aggression?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Preventive action at present is being undertaken by the United Nations—the police action, if one likes to call it that, and the action of observers, and so on.


We are perfectly ready and willing to increase that, and we thought it a good thing to do so, but we thought it better for the Secretary-General and General Burns, who is handling that action, to advise as to what they require.

Dr. Bennett: As British interests and prestige are under such critical examination throughout the Middle East nowadays, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Anglo-American approaches to a settlement in Palestine are likely to be delayed in any way by the fact that this is a Presidential election year?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is no question of that. We are, and for some time have been, in close agreement in this matter, as to what we should like to do. The difficulty is in doing it.

Mr. A. Henderson: More than two months ago the Foreign Secretary stated that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to support any recommendation which General Burns cared to make with regard to the augmenting of the numbers of United Nations observers. Has General Burns made any such recommendations or, alternatively, has he been invited to say whether he wishes to do so?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been on a tour of that part of the world, and I understand that he is likely to report upon this matter shortly. I think that the recommendation has to come from him, as Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Mr. Nicholson: Is it the intention to alter the functions of the United Nations Commission, or merely to increase its numbers?

The Prime Minister: We are prepared to enlarge the observer corps, and if it is thought necessary to make any modifications we are ready to consider that— but it is not really for the United States and the United Kingdom alone to say, "This is what should be done. "We

have made certain suggestions, and we are prepared to play our part in carrying them out.

Mr. Younger: Can the Prime Minister respond to the plea of my right hon. Friend for an early debate upon this subject? Is he aware that there will be some surprise at his statement that the Declaration was designed also to bring comfort and hope to people in many other—that is, other than Western—areas of the world? Is he aware that to many of us who have read it, from that point of view it seem to be on a par, both in its good intentions and ineffectiveness, with the famous appeal made in the United Nations, some years ago to the Arabs and Jews to "behave themselves like Christians"?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not value our declaration at all. Of course, he must reserve his own judgment on the matter. It is strongly opposed, I may tell him, to the judgment, publicly expressed, by Mr. Adlai Stevenson, for instance, and a great many other people of liberal opinion throughout the world. I am sorry that he should take that view. For my part, I think that we state too rarely what are the things in which we believe.

Hon. Members: What about a debate?

The Prime Minister: That can be discussed through the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We ought to pass on.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Captain Sir Keith Sinjohn Joseph, Baronet, for Leeds, North-East.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler]

CHARLES BEATTIE INDEMNITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.2p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House will recall that on 7th February a Motion was passed without a Division to declare that Mr. Beattie was disqualified from membership of the House of Commons and approving the Select Committee's recommendation that he should be indemnified from all the consequences of sitting and voting while disqualified. This Bill implements that recommendation. Its effect is to indemnify Mr. Beattie from all penal consequences whatsoever which he may have incurred between the day of his election and the date when the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

4.3p.m.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. and hon. Friends support this Bill and we do not wish to do anything which would delay its passage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.6 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a Bill of 53 Clauses and deals with a wide variety of subjects, the only connecting link between them being that each one deals with the administration of justice. I hope that I shall not weary the House by going into too much detail, but I feel that I should indicate the main changes proposed by the Clauses.
As the House will see, the first part of the Bill deals with Admiralty jurisdiction and other provisions as to ships. Despite its title, it does not trespass on the province of my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. That part of the Bill really has three objects. The first is to bring our law into line with a convention relating to the arrest of sea-going ships which has been signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The second is to bring our law into line with a convention concerning civil jurisdiction in matters of collision, signed also on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The third is to state the law relating to the Admiralty jurisdiction of the court in a convenient and up-to-date form.
In 1952, an International Conference on Maritime Law was held at the instance of the Belgian Government. We sent a strong delegation, headed by Mr. Justice Pilcher. That conference led to the two conventions to which I have referred. An implementation of those conventions will lead to a greater uniformity of practice in different countries in relation to the matters dealt with by those conventions. I may say that the conventions are supported by the shipping interests of this country, who consider that our shipping industry will benefit from them.
Most of the other States which are
parties to the convention exercise jurisdiction to arrest ships in circumstances in which no arrest would be made in this country. To ratify the convention relating to the arrest of ships, those countries will have to reduce the number of cases in which arrest is at present possible. We, on the other hand, in


order to be in a position to ratify these conventions, have to extend in some respects our law relating to the arrest of ships and to make some minor changes in the law governing jurisdiction in collision cases.
I do not think that the House will wish me to detail the changes involved in our law. I can say that the Bill fully implements the requirements of the conventions, but there is perhaps one change which I should mention. That change relates to the power to arrest a sister ship in certain actions against an owner or charterer if the sister ship is beneficially owned by the same owner or charterer as the ship in respect of which the claim arises. This, though not known to English law, is a concept well known in Scotland and on the Continent, and this change in our law will enable a foreign claimant to bring his action against the ship here instead of abroad, and that may help British owners.
I think that the real advantage of implementing these conventions lies in the measure of uniformity of practice in the countries of the contracting parties that will result. To be able to ratify the convention relating to collisions, we have to restrict in some degree the existing jurisdiction of our courts. The general effect of Clause 4 is to restrict jurisdiction in personam in cases of collision to cases where the defendant has his habitual residence or place of business in England or Wales, or the cause of action arose in England or Wales, within inland waters or a port, or the court has already heard or is hearing an action arising out of the same incident.
The House will, I hope, agree that the third object of this part of the Bill is satisfactorily achieved. Clause 1 defines the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, Clause 2 of the inferior courts, and Clauses 3 and 4 relate to the manner of its exercise. The provisions of this part
of the Bill have been carefully considered by the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and Mr. Justice Willmer. They are satisfied that these provisions will enable us to give effect to the two conventions and also that the law as to the jurisdiction of our courts in Admiralty and the manner of its exercise has been well stated.
Part V of the Bill is designed to bring the law of Scotland into line with the conventions, and I hope that the House will not expect me to say any more about that part.
I now turn to Part II, which deals with a variety of matters. Clause 10 deals with the appointment and tenure of office of official referees. They were first created in 1873, and since then their functions have greatly increased. They deal with a wide variety of matters, particularly the trial of issues involving a mass of detail and often involving very large sums of money. They really function as assistant judges of the High Court and their status as such should be recognised. This Clause provides that they should be appointed by Her Majesty as our recorders and stipendiary magistrates on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, that they should take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath and that their tenure of office should be certain, not determinable by the Lord Chancellor.
Clause 11 widens the field of recruitment to various offices. Oddly enough, though a county court judge can be appointed a judge of the High Court, he cannot at present be appointed an official referee. This Clause remedies that and also one or two similar anomalies.
Clause 12 makes it easier to appoint deputy district registrars of the High Court in case of illness or the unavoidable absence from duty of the district registrar. The present procedure in relation to that is rather cumbrous.
Clauses 13 and 14 are designed to facilitate the work of the district registrar of the High Court. Under existing laws pressure
of work can only be alleviated by the appointment of a joint registrar or the opening of a new registry. That is often not necessary. This power to appoint assistant district registrars which will be given by these Clauses is not expected to involve any increase of staff, for usually district registrars and county court registrars are the same people. There are more county court registrars than district registrars, and it is proposed to ask county court registrars also to act as assistant district registrars. Clause 14 will also enable one district registrar to help another in time of emergency.
Clause 16 is an important Clause which has two objects. The first is to clarify


the present position. The law as to the jurisdiction of official referees, masters and other officers and as to appeals from them is scattered indiscriminately over statutes and rules, and it should be one or the other, either in statutes or in rules. Practitioners are accustomed to look at rules. Procedural provisions are in modern practice usually left to rules of court, and rules of court have a greater degree of flexibility. They can be changed more easily if the situation requires it. This Clause gives wide rule-making power and repeals the statutory provisions so that rules can replace those statutory provisions.
The second object of this Clause is that it will enable certain recommendations of the Committee on the Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court, which all the lawyers refer to as the Evershed Committee, to be carried into effect—namely, their recommendations that the range of matters which may be referred to the official referee should be increased, that a right of appeal on fact should be given from an official referee's decision, that official referees should be given power to commit or to attach for disobedience to an order, and that appeals from certain decisions of masters and others should go direct to the Court of Appeal.
Clause 17 deals with a distinct and separate matter. It repeals two old Acts and a number of sections of the Debtors Act, 1869. These provisions in these old Acts and in the Debtors Act are entirely obsolete.
Warrants of attorney were abused by
Debtors to defraud their creditors,
and such warrants and cognovits by creditors to oppress their debtors. These two old Acts and these provisions of the Debtors Act were intended to prevent abuse of these legal instruments. They are no longer of any value. These statutory provisions require registers to be kept. Since 1886 no warrant of attorney has been filed, and only one cognovit.
I now turn to Part III of the Bill. Clause 21 makes similar provision in relation to the appointment of county court judges as Clause 10 does in relation to official referees. They will be appointed by Her Majesty and required to take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath. It really is anomalous that county court judges should not do so, despite their much increased status and jurisdiction,

when they have to do so if they sit as justices of peace of quarter sessions.
Clauses 22 and 23 are intended to enable temporary congestion in the county courts to be alleviated. Odd though it may seem, a deputy judge can now only be appointed in the event of illness or the unavoidable absence of the judge. This means that on a county circuit where there is only one judge it is not possible to secure that he and his deputy can sit at the same time at the same court to dispose of a heavy list. Clause 22 seeks to overcome this difficulty.
It is not, of course, intended to make a practice of appointing temporary judges to do the work which could properly be done by a permanent judge. These two Clauses carry out recommendations of the Committee on County Court Practice and Procedure, which, again, we lawyers commonly refer to as the Austin Jones Committee.
I do not think I need say much about Clauses 24 and 25. They make useful changes with regard to county court registrars and their assistants.
Clause 27 is the next Clause of major importance on which I should say a little. It deals with a distinct and separate subject. The Austin Jones Committee described the ineffectiveness of the present machinery for compelling a judgment debtor to attend the hearing of a judgment summons for examination as to his means. The only sanction at present, if the judgment debtor does not appear to answer a judgment summons, is to fine him and so add to his debts.
If he does not pay the fine for non-attendance he cannot be committed to prison unless the court has made inquiry as to his means in his presence. The judgment summons requires him to attend personally. If he does not attend, he is fined, and so long as he does not attend the court and so long as he can consequently avoid an inquiry as to his means in his presence, in practice nothing further can happen to him. Thus the authority of the county court can be flouted with impunity.
The Clause proposes to remedy this in the following way: if the debtor fails to attend on the day fixed for the hearing of the judgment summons, the hearing can be adjourned and the debtor ordered to attend on the adjourned date. If he fails to attend then he can be sent to prison


for a maximum of 14 days. I should like to make this clear beyond all shadow of doubt: that will not be imprisonment for debt but imprisonment, if he is sent to prison, for disobedience of the court order requiring his attendance.
Clauses 28 and 29 carry out minor recommendations of the Austin Jones Committee.
Now I come to Part IV. The Evershed Committee recommended that the writ of elegit should be abolished. They found it a cumbersome anachronism. It involves an inquiry by a sheriffs jury as to the land the debtor possesses. There was some point in this process originally because a jury of local men would know what lands the debtor possessed. Nowadays that is by no means the case, and usually the jury is completely mystified by this procedure. Clauses 34 to 36 therefore abolish the writ of elegit and provide machinery in its place for enforcing a judgment as a charge on land and by the appointment of a receiver.
Clause 37, again, deals with a distinct subject. The clothes and bedding of the debtor and his family and the tools of his trade to the value of £5 are exempt from seizure under a warrant of execution. This amount of £5 was fixed in 1846. The Austin Jones Committee recommended in 1949 that it should be raised to £15. This Clause raises the exemption to £20, with power to the Lord Chancellor to prescribe a higher limit.
Clause 38 carries out the Evershed Committee's recommendation that deposit accounts at an ordinary bank should be attachable to satisfy judgments or orders made against the debtor. Clause 39 provides that judgments of the High Court should be enforceable by execution in the county court. This is another of the Evershed Committee's recommendations directed to the saving of costs.
I have now, I hope, summarised the main provisions of the Bill which deals, as the House will see, with a wide variety of subjects not closely related. The House will see that the Bill, although miscellaneous in its provisions, has three main objects. The first is to enable us to ratify the two coventions to which I have referred, and to do that we have to alter the Admiralty jurisdiction of our courts. The second is to make changes with regard to official referees and county court

judges and to recognise their present status. The third is to make a number of changes in the law relating to the High Court and county courts and in so doing to enable a number of recommendations of the Evershed Committee and the Austin Jones Committee to be carried into effect.
I should like to conclude by expressing our thanks to the members of those committees for the hard work which they did and for the valuable reports which they have presented.

4.25 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: We are very much obliged to the Attorney-General for his clear exposition of this bundle of miscellaneous items. This is, of course, essentially a Committee Bill rather than a Second Reading Bill. The Attorney-General has expounded the Bill and it is not part of my function to do so, but I will state briefly what is the attitude of the Opposition towards it.
The Bill has already had the advantage of consideration in another place, but when we reach the Committee stage we shall want appreciably fuller and more detailed explanations of at least some of the Clauses, although I do not necessarily say that we shall oppose them. As a whole it is obviously a beneficial Bill, and we welcome it. As a party we are in favour of international conventions and of international understanding, and, of course, we are in favour of the extension of international arrangements, particularly in such an obviously international field as maritime law. We certainly support the proposals in the Bill for giving effect to the maritime conventions which have been entered into.
The second series of reforms in the Bill affect official referees and county court judges, and anybody acquainted with the work of official referees and county court judges will subscribe immediately to the proposal for recognising the status which they hold in the profession. Those proposals will certainly commend themselves to us.
In addition, there are a number of minor reforms affecting official referees and county courts in general, as well as the High Court. They are tidying up reforms of a technical nature which may


require a little examination in Committee, but which obviously require no development on Second Reading.
I should like to join the Attorney-General in associating myself with the tributes paid to the Evershed Committee and the Austin Jones Committee. They spent a great deal of time doing very arduous work of a detailed nature on the High Court and the county courts and we on this side of the House are very glad that certain of their proposals have found their way into the Bill.
There is one matter about which I personally have a little misgiving, and perhaps I should mention it now. It concerns the proposal in Clause 27, which I recognize
was recommended by the Austin Jones Committee. It concerns the imposition of imprisonment in connection with a judgment summons where a judgment debtor fails to attend for examination on a judgment. It has been a principle of the law of this country for a long time that nobody shall be imprisoned for debt.
Let me say at once that I fully appreciate the point which the Attorney-General made—that this is not imprisonment for debt; it may be regarded as imprisonment in the nature of imprisonment for contempt of court. But what it means—and this is the troublesome part -—is that a procedure the sole purpose of which is to be ancillary to securing the payment of a debt will be enforceable by imprisonment when the debt itself, the major matter, will not and cannot be the subject of imprisonment. I appreciate the Attorney-General's argument, and, of course, one treats with great respect proposals made by the Austin Jones Committee and the Law Officers, but this is a troublesome aspect and one which we shall want to probe further in Committee.
Taking the Bill as a whole, it is obviously beneficial and we welcome its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision, amongst other things, as to the appointment, tenure of office, powers and qualification of certain judges and officers, it is expedient to authorise payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of the remuneration of persons appointed under the said Act to act for the county court judge for any district in the despatch of business at any sitting of the court for that district; and
(b)any increase in the sums which fall to be so paid under any enactment relating to the salaries or superannuation of officers of the Supreme Court or of county courts, being an increase attributable to any provision of the said Act—

(i) providing for the appointment of assistant district registrars of the High Court and for their salaries and superannuation; or
(ii) applying to whole-time assistant registrars of county courts any of the enactments aforesaid which apply to whole-time registrars of county courts,
and the payment into the Exchequer of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums which fall to be paid into the Exchequer under subsection (3) of section twenty-five of the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950. —[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable local authorities to defray certain expenses in connection with official and courtesy visits, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to police forces in Scotland and to the execution of warrants in the border counties of England and Scotland, it is expedient—
A. to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment providing for the payment of grants towards the expenses of police authorities and joint police committees in Scotland; and
(b) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under any provision of the said Act of the present Session empowering him—

(i) to provide courses of instruction in matters relating to police service for constables of police forces maintained under any provision of the said Act, and for that purpose to maintain central training institutions (including instructing and administrative staff and land, buildings and equipment); or
(ii) to make arrangements for the attendance of constables of such police forces at courses provided otherwise than as aforesaid;
and
B. to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Secretary of State from police authorities or joint police committees in Scotland, or deducted by him from moneys otherwise payable by him to any such authority or committee, by virtue of any provision of the said Act of tie present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(LAND AND BUILDINGS.) 4.34 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, at the end to insert:
(4) The Sixth Schedule to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which specifies enactments for the purposes of which money may be borrowed by local authorities repayable within periods other than thirty years), shall have effect as though there were added in the first column thereof a reference to this section except so much thereof as relates to dwelling houses and other housing accommodation and in the second column thereof, opposite that reference, the words "Such period not exceeding sixty years as the Secretary of State may fix.
It might be convenient, if it is in order, Sir Charles, that I should also mention the following Amendments on the Order Paper, and the new Clauses, because the same considerations apply to all of them. All these Amendments are designed to reinstate in the Bill those parts which formerly were removed in another place for Privilege reasons. The passages concerned are underlined and printed in square brackets in the printed Bill. All are formal.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(AID OF ONE POLICE FORCE BY ANOTHER.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 42, at end insert:
(4) The cost of any assistance given under any of the foregoing provisions of this section from the resources of a police force shall be divided between the police authorities concerned in such manner as may be agreed between them, or, in default of such agreement, as may be provided by any agreement subsisting at the time between all police authorities generally, or, in default of any agreement, as may be directed by the Secretary of State.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30.—(POLICE GRANT.)

Amendment made: In page 20, line 38, at end insert:
(2) The Secretary of State may deduct from any sum payable by him under the preceding subsection to any police authority or joint police committee any sum due by that authority or committee to him by virtue of subsection (5) of the last preceding section or by virtue of that subsection as applied by any order under subsection (6) of that section.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 31 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 40 and 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(PAY ALLOWANCES, EXPENSES AND REWARDS.)

(1) The police authority shall pay to the constables of a police force pay and allowances in accordance with regulations made under section eleven of this Act, and shall reimburse to such constables any expenses reasonably incurred by them in the performance of their duty, being expenses of a kind approved either generally or in particular cases by the Secretary of State.

(2) On the recommendation of the chief constable of a police force the police authority may pay such sums by way of reward as they think fit—

(a) to any constable (other than the chief constable) of the police force who in their opinion has conducted himself in the performance of his duty with exceptional merit, or
(b)to any constable (other than the chief constable) of another police force who, while serving with the first mentioned force in pursuance of the provisions of this Act relating to the mutual aid of police forces, has in their opinion conducted himself in the performance of his duty with exceptional merit, or
(c)to any person other than a constable who in their opinion has substantially contributed to the fulfilment of the functions of the police force:

Provided that the aggregate of payments made under this subsection by a police authority in any year shall not exceed such sum as may be approved by the Secretary of State.— [The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(CENTRAL TRAINING AND OTHER COMMON SERVICES.)

(1) The Secretary of State may provide courses for constables of police forces, and may for that purpose, if he thinks fit, establish and maintain one or more central training institutions (including such instructing and administrative staff, and such land, buildings and equipment, as he may consider expedient).

(2) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the attendance of constables of police forces at courses provided (whether in Scotland or elsewhere) otherwise than under the preceding subsection.

(3) Before providing any courses, or making any arrangements, under the preceding provisions of this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Joint Central Committee and such bodies or associations as appear to him to be representative of police authorities, chief constables and superintendents respectively.

(4) Where a constable of a police force, with the consent of the chief constable, undertakes temporary, service as a member of the instructing staff of any central training institution established under subsection (1) of this section, such service shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act and any Act relating to police pensions and (in either case) any enactment made thereunder, to be service as a constable of the said police force.

(5) One half of the expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in establishing and maintaining any central training institution under subsection (1) of this section shall be recoverable by him from police authorities (not being constituent authorities) and from joint police committees in such proportions as may be determined by him after consulting such bodies or associations as appear to him to be representative of police authorities; and any expenses falling on a police authority or joint police committee by virtue of this subsection shall be defrayed in like manner as other expenses incurred by the authority or committee for the purposes of this Act.

(6) The Secretary of State, after consulting such bodies or associations as appear to him to be representative of police authorities, may by order apply the last preceding subsection to the expenses incurred by him in providing any other service for the purposes of police forces generally.

(7) In this section "courses "means courses of instruction in matters relating to police service.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(FINANCIAL PROVISIONS.)

(1)There shall be defrayed out of Moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) any increase attributable to the passing of this Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment providing for the payment of Exchequer grants towards the expenses of police authorities and joint police committees in Scotland; and
(b) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Act.

(2)Any sums which by virtue of any provision of this Act are received by the Secretary of State from police authorities or joint police committees, or deducted by him from moneys otherwise payable by him to any such authority or committee, shall be paid into the Exchequer. —[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: I hope that the House will not regard the proceedings on this Bill as a precedent likely to be followed on many occasions. I think that it is three-and-a-half years since a Scottish Bill of this length went through Committee and Report stages and reached its Third Reading with so few words being said by Scottish Members. The only reason that I think it fit to state why this Bill has gone through so smoothly is that it is obviously a Bill which is welcomed on both sides of the House. The few misgivings which one or two hon. Members had about certain points of detail in it have been cleared up by consultation and, therefore, we welcome this Bill in its last stages in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (STOCK)

4.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move,
That the Draft Local Authorities (Stock) Regulations, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.
There are two simple purposes which lie behind these Regulations. The first is this. As the principal Regulations now stand, it is necessary for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to give his consent to the raising of stock by a local authority in the form of a Ministerial Order. That Ministerial Order is not one of those which is laid before this House. It affords no Parliamentary control and it has proved to be an administrative inconvenience as compared with the alternative method of a consent letter, because it delays consent and involves unnecessary administrative formalities.
The second purpose of the Regulations, which will be found dealt with in Regulation 4 (2), is to bring the procedure of the sinking fund for the redemption of stock into accordance with the sinking fund accumulated for the purpose of paying off mortgages. At the moment, the rate of accumulation of interest on sinking funds for paying off mortgages is to be at a rate not exceeding that determined from time to time by the Minister, so there is prescribed by that procedure a maximum rate of interest. At present, the Minister's prescription of the rate, not a maximum rate but an absolute rate, at which interest is to accumulate on sinking funds for paying off stock, is unconnected with that of sinking funds for paying off mortgages.
It is clearly convenient that the rate of accumulation in both cases should be the same, that in both cases it should be the maximum, so that the Minister can make an exception where the rate of interest or the investments of a local authority justifies it, and that any changes in the rates of interest should come into force simultaneously. If these Regulations are made, the new rate of interest will apply both for mortgages sinking funds and for stock sinking funds from 1st April next and will be at a rate of 3½ per cent.

Question put and agreed to.

GIBRALTAR

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Legh.]

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North): About three months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) raised on an Adjournment debate the economic plight of Gibraltar. I want to deal this afternoon with one of the main reasons, perhaps the only reason, lying behind the economic plight of Gibraltar—reasons to which my hon. Friend alluded briefly in the course of his speech on 31st October. It is for that reason that I asked that this Adjournment debate should be answered by the Foreign Office today, and I congratulate the noble Lord on being already in his place at this exceptionally early hour for an Adjournment debate.
To appreciate what is going on in Gibraltar it is necessary to understand the position as it used to be before the announcement of Her Majesty's proposed visit to Gibraltar about two years ago, when all these things which I am about to describe started.
Owing to its peculiar geographical position and its special economic needs, Gibraltar has for a long time been dependent upon Spanish good will— perhaps a better phrase would be "give and take—for its economic viability, because the economy of Gibraltar hinges very largely on its dockyard, which needs many more unskilled and semi-skilled workers than are available within Gibraltar itself.
For many years there has been a system of workers' passes which used to be freely given to enable large numbers of Spanish workers to cross the frontier daily at La Linea to work during the day in the dockyard and to return to their homes in Spain in the evening. This system, oddly enough, continued to operate even during the last war, as I know from my own experience, because I spent some weeks in Gibraltar during the war. I would remind the House that it was a war in which Spain was officially neutral, although some cynics described her position as one of neutrality on Hitler's side.
I remember an occasion when three or four British ships were blown up and sunk during one night by human torpedoes and limpet mines which were dispatched from neutral Algeciras which is across the bay from Gibraltar. They were propelled by
Italians who took off from Spanish soil. Yet, even during that atmosphere, this system of workers' passes in Gibraltar dockyard continued, which indicates that it was of some value to the Spaniards as well as to us in Gibraltar.
I used to see a long line of workers going back across the frontier in the evening, each being given a loaf of bread as a kind of bonus, and, no doubt, as a special inducement to them to work in the dockyard, because without the bread their families in Spain would have been very nearly on the starvation level. It was a system of give and take from the Spanish point of view, largely because of Spain's chronic inability to provide adequate employment for her nationals in the

area around Gibraltar. It helped us and it helped Spain.
What happens today? Fewer workers' passes are being issued, and I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the precise position today. It is not very clear to me whether any new passes are being issued or whether merely the present number is being steadily and deliberately diminished by the Spanish authorities.
The Spanish workers are no longer able to take any goods out of Gibraltar, as they used to do, because they know from experience that such goods will be confiscated at the frontier by the Spanish customs authorities. They are, in addition, forced to change part of their pay— I think the greater part of it—which they receive in sterling in Gibraltar, at the frontier into pesetas at the official rate of exchange. This, incidentally, is much less favourable to them than the rate which they can obtain at any tobacconist's shop in Gibraltar, because I understand that all tobacconists in Gibraltar are also unofficial bureaux de change. There have recently been cases where Spanish workers have been told to change into pesetas more money than they actually earned in sterling in Gibraltar, and when they protested they were told that they must go back and ask their British employers to pay them more in £ sterling per week. That ties up also with the fact that Spanish labour associations, which are not trade unions in any sense in which we understand those words in this country, are systematically trying to stir up industrial unrest in the dockyard in Gibraltar and elsewhere. So much for the new attitude of the Spanish authorities towards Spanish workers going into Gibraltar.
I would now like to say a word about their attitude to British subjects. Let us first take the Gibraltarians themselves, many of whom have lived for a long time, not actually in Gibraltar, but in what is known as the Campo area just over the frontier in Spain. Again, they used to have no difficulty in crossing the frontier, but today they are allowed to enter Gibraltar only for a very special reason—perhaps to see a doctor or dentist, or something like that. Young men who have finished their schooling in Gibraltar and gone to live with their families in the Campo area are refused workers' passes to work in Gibraltar.
So many restrictions and difficulties have been placed in the way of Gibraltarians living on the Rock itself who want to enter Spain, that many of them have given up even trying to cross the frontier. This is a bad thing for Spanish shopkeepers also, because many people used to go over and buy goods in Spain and bring them back into Gibraltar. Nevertheless, the Spanish authorities are apparently prepared to cut off their nose to spite their face.
I should like to give one illustration of what is going on. A Gibraltarian decided recently that he would like to go shooting in Spain. He made inquiries and discovered that arrangements existed whereby foreigners could take sporting guns into Spain. So with his gun over his shoulder, he went to the frontier, where he was promptly turned
back by the Spanish guards. He said, I thought there was an arrangement for foreigners to take guns in." The frontier guard said, "But you are not a foreigner." The man answered, "Are you saying that I am Spanish?" The guard replied, "No, certainly not." So the man said:" I am a foreigner—I must be. As a matter of fact, I am British. Here is my British passport." The frontier guard said," No, you are not British." At that, the man exploded and the frontier guard said," I am sorry, but that is what I am told to say. You are not British, you are not a foreigner—you are a Gibraltarian."
Another restriction has been placed upon British troops in Gibraltar, and I understand that no troops under the rank of sergeant are allowed to cross the frontier. The ostensible reason for this, I understand, is to protect Spanish womanhood in La Linea and elsewhere.
Possibly of less serious effect from an economic point of view is the treatment which the Spanish authorities are meting
out to British subjects living in Spain in and around Gibraltar. This amounts to a sustained campaign of pin-pricking and humiliation. For more than a century, many British people have been resident in this part of Spain, many of them—perhaps most of them—earning their living in Gibraltar daily and going back to their homes at night. Until two years ago, they were allowed to move perfectly freely, to cross just as they liked and as often as they liked.
Now, these British residents in Spain fall, as far as I can gather, into three categories. The first category consists

probably of less than twenty individuals, most of them officials, who have white passes, which permit them to move freely, just as everybody used to be able to do before these restrictions were introduced. Secondly, there are some British subjects who cannot get an exit visa at all and who are consequently prohibited altogether from going to Gibraltar. Thirdly, there is the category—perhaps the largest —of those who are able to obtain exit and entry visas from a Spanish consulate, but with a maximum of three entrances in every three months.
As part of this campaign, however, the Spaniards closed down their vice-consulate in Gibraltar some years ago. Of course, they have no consulate in Spain itself and, therefore, these British residents, in order to get a renewal or extension of their three months' permit, have to go across to Africa and get a renewal from the Spanish consul in Tangier, for that is the nearest consulate. A friend of mine who was over there
wanted to take his child into Gibraltar to see the doctor. He had used up the three entrances that were permitted him in the quarter, and he had to go over to Tangier in order to get into Gibraltar.
One could go on indefinitely with this long list of irritations. As far as British subjects are concerned, it may well be that taken individually the irritations may be considered trivial, but they add up to a campaign of deliberate humiliation on the part of the Spanish authorities and the Spanish Government.
I should like to give just two more examples of what is going on. I am not an expert on football, but I understand that Spain and Gibraltar are both very keen indeed about soccer but no Spanish soccer team is allowed to go into Gibraltar to play. Some little time ago Sir Stanley Rous, the Secretary of the Football Association, interceded with his opposite number in Madrid about this and was told that nothing could be done because the instruction came direct from the Spanish Government itself.
Lastly, there are the arrangements about motor cars. There have been various arrangements over recent years, but the most recent one was called the Lilli Imossi Agreement, which permitted British people working in Gibraltar but living in Spain to have their cars


registered in Gibraltar, provided that they were guaranteed by the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce. This agreement has been cancelled and the people have been told that the alternative is that they can have their cars registered in Spain; but this involves an enormous duty—I believe, something like 300 per cent. ad valorem duty—and a permit to buy the car, which is normally refused.
I should like to ask the noble Lord why, in his view, the Spanish Government is behaving like this and what it all amounts to. Trivial as many of these complaints in themselves are, together they constitute a war of nerves and a conscious attempt on the part of the Government of Spain to impose, at any rate, a partial blockade on Gibraltar and to strangle her economically. Let us make no mistake about it, that is certainly what the people of Gibraltar think; and that is what the Spanish Press and radio say, for they have stated quite openly that the Spanish Government in the very near future will place Gibraltar in such an impossible position that Britain will have no alternative but to surrender Gibraltar to Spain. That is their avowed aim.
But there is nothing at all new in Spain's desire to get Gibraltar back. What is interesting is why this campaign should have started up about two years ago and why it has been steadily intensified since then. Here we come to the rather curious role in all this of our allies in the United States. For the last two or three years, as the House knows, the United States has been pouring millions of dollars into Spain, bolstering up her economy and, incidentally, bolstering up a regime as undemocratic as any regime on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
In its feverish search for reliable anti-Communist allies, the United States has been all too ready to clasp Fascist Spain to its bosom. This passionate wooing, after a period in which Spain had been cold-shouldered by most of the countries of the West, very naturally went to General Franco's head. With such a powerful friend, no doubt he felt the time had come when he could take a chance at the old game of twisting the lion's tail, and he felt strong enough to make what was, in his view, a real bid for Gibraltar.
Of course, very few of those American dollars have filtered through to the Spanish workers, but there are public works such as air bases, port development schemes, and the like, which are going on? and are paid for by United States money. I have described Gibraltar as being slowly starved of Spanish workers, but not immediately starved, and that, I submit, is because there are not yet enough works to absorb the displaced workers in that part of Spain. I understand, however, that one of the items in the programme is a port development scheme for Algeciras. No doubt, as that progresses, the Spanish Government will think it safe to withdraw more and more workers away from Gibraltar.
All the time the Americans in Spain are not only ostentatiously exempt from the restrictions placed on British subjects but a red carpet, as it were, is put down for them by the Spanish Government. One would think, incidentally, that Gibraltar was of some value as a N.A.T.O. as well as a British base. By keeping silent our American allies are condoning this anti-British campaign. One single word from the State Department and this nonsense would stop tomorrow. Of course, this silence may be unwitting. It is just conceivable that the Americans do not know what is going on, but I would ask the noble Lord whether they have been informed by us, and whether any help has been asked of them in the way of diplomatic representations to the Spanish Government, and, if such a request has been made, what reply we have received.
There have been American actions which have damaged our economic interests in Gibraltar which could not have been accidental. I will mention one of them. There is a large American shipping company called American Export Lines, which has run a regular passenger and cargo service for many years from New York to various Mediterranean ports, and its first Mediterranean port of call had always been Gibraltar. Suddenly, starting only last month, its port of call was made not Gibraltar but Algeciras, across the bay. This is a decision which, in my view, could not possibly have been taken on any commercial considerations.
One has only to look at the two ports. The only communication from Algeciras to Madrid is by means of an old, dusty, uncomfortable train journey which takes seventeen hours. There are no air services,


and there is not even an airport. There are mo dockside facilities. The ships will have to anchor offshore and passengers and cargo discharged by tender and lighter. There is one rather poor hotel. On the other hand, Gibraltar has excellent dock facilities, at least one first-class hotel, and air communications with Madrid and many other large cities. It is inconceivable to me that such a switch as this could have been made except under some political pressure. I should like to know where the pressure was exercised. I cannot imagine a large American enterprise being dictated to by the Spanish Government.
There are strong hints that the pressure came from Washington, in the pages of an American-owned newspaper called the Moroccan Courier, published, I think, in Tangier. In it was an article written by its American editor. Discussing this decision of American Export Lines, he said:
It would appear logical that our Congress and foreign service would do well to seriously study the ramifications of the proposed change. Are we to further antagonise and possibly jeopardise an already proven friendship with our only natural linguistic ally, England, because of such a move?…Are we to trade certainty of friendship with England for flowery promises from the land of siestas, fiestas and mananas?
That is interesting, coming as it does from an American source.
I know that the action which the Americans took of withdrawing their consul from Gibraltar did not help at all. I gather that the official reason was one of economy. Only then did the Spaniards withdraw their vice-consul, and this was generally thought in Gibraltar to be due to the fact that the Spaniards took the American action as the green light for their being unpleasant to the British. If the American action was innocent, it was certainly thoughtless and unwise.
I thought it as well that the facts about the Gibraltar situation should be known in this country because I do not think that they are widely known at present. The Foreign Secretary has been very coy about it. I put down some Questions just before the Recess, to which the present Minister of Health, when he was Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied, and I thought that there was an air of complacency about his replies. Certainly, that
opinion was shared by people in Gibraltar. I understand that a vigorous protest came from the Gibral-

tar Chamber of Commerce, claiming that one of the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman was distinctly misleading, and asking the Colonial Secretary to inform the Foreign Secretary what precisely was the situation in Gibraltar. I should like to know what representations have been made about these matters.
The people of Gibraltar undoubtedly feel that they are being let down by Britain. They feel very bitter about the friendly facade of Anglo-Spanish relations at a time when they are suffering daily humiliation at the hands of the Spanish authorities. They wonder why we appear to be falling over backwards to restore normal diplomatic relations with Spain, why we are seeking trade talks the whole time, why the Royal Navy has resumed courtesy calls at Spanish ports, why we backed Spain's entry into the United Nations, without a single concession to Gibraltar on the part of Spain. And well may they wonder.
Despite all this, it ought to be made abundantly clear that, from the information I can gather, the people of Gibraltar remain solidly loyal to this country. Indeed, a plebiscite as to whether Gibraltar wanted to remain British or to become part of Spain might be a very safe gamble for the British Government, and might be one way of putting a stop to this nonsense once for all. The general opinion in Gibraltar is that such a plebiscite would result in a 105 per cent, victory for Britain. Perhaps the noble Lord will say that the Government are not going to let this really intolerable situation go on indefinitely, that he is going to make protests and vigorous protests to the Spanish Government, and that he will, if necessary, seek the assistance of our American allies in putting an end to it.

5.8 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: There have often been moments when I have wondered whether it is ever right that matters pertaining to our rather strained foreign relations should ever be raised in the House; and although, as I think hon. Members opposite will agree, I am only too ready to exercise my own right to say what I think, yet I have sometimes wondered whether the timing of what we say here about such matters is right or wrong.
I am in no position to say whether the facts, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras,


North (Mr. K. Robinson) has related them, are correct or incorrect, and I know that the luck of the Ballot has a good deal to do with his having brought them up now; but I cannot help feeling that the timing of his remarks about our American allies has been unfortunate, when today we have had a statement from the Prime Minister on his return from Washington, and we have all been very impressed by the great success of his talks there. It would be singularly unfortunate if anything were said in the House today which would be likely to detract from that. As we know, there are many people who would be delighted if anything were said to make it seem as if the talks were not as successful as in fact they have been, and we have had news from Moscow over the weekend which is obviously designed for that very purpose.
Whatever our views on the regime in Spain—and I should not like to live under it—we should realise that if General Franco had not stopped a Communist regime from establishing itself in Spain, which was a risk, we might have found ourselves in a more difficult position than we are now in fighting the cold war. Therefore, I would qualify some of the hon. Member's comments in relation to General Franco and his Government.
If the facts which the hon. Member has given about conditions as they affect the individual British citizen in Gibraltar are correct, I hope that the Foreign Office will take appropriate steps to deal with the matter. As I have said, I am not in a position to know whether the facts are correct or not. But when the hon. Member asked the House why there has been an increased pressure by the Spaniards upon our position in Gibraltar, I should have thought that the answer was not so very difficult. If one looks at the record of the hon. Member's own Government when they were in power, and what a chain of calamities followed from the policy of getting out when things grew too awkward, it is not altogether surprising that pressure should be applied wherever we are weak.
I always remember that Stalin, in his writings, asked, "Where do you strike at Imperialism?" and answered himself by saying, "Where the chain is weakest." I think that he was then thinking of India.

There are those who believe that there is something wrong with British Imperialism, but my own view is that British Imperialism is the answer to many other means of managing world affairs. There are those who are violently antagonistic to British Imperialism, and they will try to push us out wherever they think the chain is weakest. If Gibraltar had to defend itself with its own population its chances would not be very great. Peace is maintained only because other Powers know what action against Gibraltar would lead to.
Nevertheless, this is a useful opportunity of discussing the position of Gibraltar, especially in the light of what has been happening in the last few days in Malta. I realise that the Foreign Office is not immediately responsible for our Colonial Territories, but it is important that we should bear in mind that there are some similarities between the position of Gibraltar and the position of Malta, although fortunately Malta has not the territorial problem which Gibraltar must inevitably have by reason of being on a land mass.
I sometimes wonder, however, whether there is not a missing link in our Commonwealth constitution, and if there is not a place for some status in between that of a Dominion and that of a Colony into which Gibraltar might one day fall. I think I am right in saying that most of the Crown Colonies which we have today are Colonies as a result of having been ceded by treaty, whereas the ordinary Colonies are often those territories which we have developed through our trade. It might well be that some redefinition is required, and that Gibraltar might one day become in status something between a Dominion and a Colony. Perhaps some such phrase as a "Sovereign Colony" would cover what I have in mind.
I hope that we shall never think that Gibraltar's constitution is static and should never be changed should the people who live in Gibraltar wish it to be changed. There is no doubt about it that all these smaller territories are in a very precarious position in the present state of the world. The smaller they are, the more they must turn to this country, and the more important it is that we should be ready to take the appropriate action at the right time.
If the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North had a direct complaint about Gibraltar itself it would probably have been infinitely preferable if he had written to the Foreign Office about the subject and given details.

Mr. K. Robinson: I put a Question to the Foreign Office, and it was because of the nature of the reply and the fact that I thought that there was complacency that I decided to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Major Legge-Bourke: I merely reiterate that I sometimes wonder whether matters affecting other Governments are best brought to light first by Questions in the House. I think that the Foreign Office is able to give a fuller reply if it is able to write to an hon. Member rather than answer him across the Floor of the House. It is sometimes extremely difficult for Ministers to answer these matters in the House.
I should like to say something about the American part in all this. I should not say it if it were not for what the hon. Member has said. It is important that if we think American business firms or other bodies not directly concerned with the American Government are doing things of which we disapprove or which we regret we should be very careful to distinguish the acts of private individuals from deliberate acts of Government. As far as I understand the hon. Member, his complaints are rather about actions by individuals or groups of individuals in matters of trade.
We can well understand the hon. Member disliking those alleged actions, but it is not always fair to blame the American Government, just as we should not think it fair if the British Government were blamed for what British traders did overseas. I hope that when my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replies to the debate, a clear distinction will be made and that it will be made plain whether or not the acts alleged by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North were the acts of the American Government or the acts of American companies. There is a world of difference.
I am sure that we are all quite certain in our own minds that, in resisting what is the real menace to the world, the Americans and ourselves are at one. We

might differ in the methods which we employ, but to suggest that the American Government are deliberately taking action designed to make our position untenable in Gibraltar or anywhere else is distinctly unfortunate. In the days of Abadan we did not like the actions of Mr. McGhee very much, and I was not very happy at times about certain actions in Cairo, but it is important that we should distinguish between the policy and action of the Government concerned and the action of individuals who are under the administration of that Government.
I would hope, therefore, that what my noble Friend says in reply will, above all, do two things. First, I hope that it will make clear that there is no rift whatever between the American Administration and our own in the matter of policy towards Gibraltar and Spain. Secondly, I hope that it will be made clear that we shall keep prominently in our minds the need to be united in the future in resisting all attempts to drive a wedge between us.
I hope the hon. Gentleman did not have that as his motive when he said what he did——

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Robinsonindicated dissent

Major Legge-Bourke: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman indicating that that was not his motive, because there are certain quarters of the world which might place that interpretation upon his remarks. For that reason I hope that none of us will do anything likely to weaken in the slightest degree the position of those who base themselves on the Christian religion and are stalwart in their fight against Communism. Had it not been that Spain prevented a Communist revolution taking hold we might find it more difficult today to fight the cold war than we do.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has repeated again and again the dangers of driving a wedge between Britain and America. He seemed to forget that this Adjournment deals with the conditions in Gibraltar, about which I thought he would have known a little more when he rose to address the House. I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will be deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson)


for having brought forward this matter in connection with the Foreign Office. As one of a deputation which visited Gibraltar in January, 1955,1 can say that my hon. Friend has raised some of the matters which were very much to the fore at that time.
I must be fair and say that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has done his utmost to live up to his responsibilities to the people of Gibraltar, but it seems that the nigger in the woodpile is the Foreign Office, which appears to wish to flirt with Spain at any cost and to ignore its responsibilities to Gibraltar. I notice from his expression that the noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary of State does not like that statement, so a little later I will quote words used by a former Governor of Gibraltar, Field Marshal Lord Ironside, who puts the point better than I can.
The people of Gibraltar are intensely loyal, as my hon. Friend has said. In fact, one cannot go to any part of the world and find as loyal a community inside the British Commonwealth as the Gibraltarians. Yet many of them have felt for some time that those who are intensely loyal are at the end of the queue when it comes to getting benefits from being inside the British Commonwealth. From correspondence in the Gibraltar Post every week I gather that many people there are beginning to feel that unless they copy some of the activities of the people of Cyprus, nobody will take any notice. In this respect it is felt that the Foreign Office is the worst offender. When statements have been made about Gibraltar in the Spanish Press, over the Spanish radio and by General Franco it is felt that the Foreign Office should have replied.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that we will not give up Gibraltar, but more than that is needed. Surely the representative of the Foreign Office knows that the screw was put on by General Franco when the programme of the Royal visit to Gibraltar was announced. As a consequence, the visits of British warships to Spanish ports were suspended. These have now started again to Barcelona and other ports although the economic strangulation of Gibraltar is continuing. I have here a copy of the Gibraltar Post for 10th December, which shows that even at this late hour

the Colony wishes to be friendly with Spain. There were floods in the adjacent towns of San Roque and the Gibraltarians sent money to help the Spanish people there.
The editorial comments:
… it is equally true to say that a deliberate economic blockade can cause as much harm and damage as these floods have done. Spain will never be successful in her efforts to ruin us, but the fact remains that she is doing her utmost to do so. Our extended hand of friendship provides therefore a grand opportunity to the Spanish Authorities to wipe the sheet clean and return to a more normal state of affairs. We must live side by side, so why not behave in a sensible and civilised manner?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the dangers of Communism, but there are dangers from other isms" as well, and as a most intelligent Member of this House he should have known that during the last two years the Colony has been fighting against slow economic strangulation by Spain, with which Her Majesty's Government seems to be especially friendly. While the people of Gibraltar recognise that this is desirable, it should not be at their expense.
I will give some evidence to show that this is not just a question of hon. Members on this side of the House wishing to say something nasty to the Government because they are in opposition. This is what Field Marshal Lord Ironside, onetime Governor of Gibraltar, wrote in Time and Tide on 15th October last year:
During our long occupation of the Rock, there has sprung up a loyal British population of over 20,000 souls. Have we the right to barter their birthright for any good which may come to us thereby in our affairs with Spain?
Those words indicate what is happening over Spain. It is time that the Foreign Office told Franco that when we say that Gibraltar is to remain inside the British Commonwealth, we mean it. We also mean, even though it is a small community, that once they have so elected we will not barter their birthright for several million pounds' worth of trade with Spain.
Here is a glorious opportunity to indicate to the rest of the world, especially to communities still inside the British Commonwealth, that no matter how small they are, any matters affecting their happiness and their livelihood will be protected by this Government, who will see that they do not suffer from any economic embargo imposed by any other country.
I ask that in giving these people every opportunity of earning their living there will be acceleration of the discussions now taking place to help them in their economic fight. Last June, I tabled a Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty about the allocation of Admiralty bunkerage which would help the civilian authorities of Gibraltar to attract more liners to the port. I received a letter from the Admiralty stating that the Question had been transferred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I table another Question, this time to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the same point of oil bunkerage which was discussed in January last year. In reply, I received a letter from the Secretary of State informing me that I must put the Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. That is the way things go on. Meantime, the Spanish authorities are taking special steps to improve the ports of Ceuta and Algeciras in order to provide facilities which will encourage even more American liners to transfer from Gibraltar to their ports.
The people of Gibraltar want to know why the Foreign Office is so favourably disposed towards Spain when it is obvious that Spain wishes to apply, and is applying, an economic stranglehold to Gibraltar. I hope that tonight, as a result of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North, a message will go out to the people of Gibraltar telling them not only that we are reaffirming that they shall stay within the British Commonwealth but that, at long last, we shall use some influence with Spain to ensure that the labour and economic blockade is brought to an end at the earliest possible moment; and, if it is not, that we shall stand by our friends in Gibraltar even if it means offending the people of Spain.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: While I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that problems like this are sometimes better raised in private than in public, now that the matter has been raised I should like to endorse one or two of the things which have been said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) as a result of a very brief visit which I paid to Gibraltar last August.
As I went there on holiday, I did not have time to investigate the situation as thoroughly as has the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds). However, I found that the arrangements for permits to enter and leave Spain were exactly as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has said. This also applies to people who obtain Spanish visas in this country, go to Spain and visit Gibraltar and return to Spain, in exactly the same way as it applies to Gibraltar nationals. It seems absurd that there should be the restriction of three visits only in three months.
This is also affecting the Spaniards adversely in the sense that many people in Gibraltar—there are many cars in Gibraltar; the traffic problem there is sometimes nearly as bad as it is here— would take advantage of the opportunity to make frequent visits to Spain in order to go for afternoon runs, and so on. I am sure that the Spaniards themselves are suffering to a certain extent because of the restrictions which have been applied.
I also confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said about the attitude of the people of Gibraltar towards ourselves. I remember visiting Gibraltar two or three times before the war—at least, landing there from a ship for a few hours—and I find them very much more friendly towards us now than they were pre-war. I do not remember that they were particularly unfriendly before the war, but they are certainly much friendlier now. Many of them were here as evacuees during the war, and they were well looked after and learned a great deal about our way of life. I believe that they appreciate being part of the British Empire. As the hon. Gentleman said, I am sure that their only wish is to continue under our rule. Consequently, I hope that this very difficult problem will be solved.
I do not want to be in the slightest degree anti-Spanish. During the past four years I have had three motoring holidays in Spain and I have always found the people most friendly. There was no difference in this the nearer I got to Gibraltar. The only exception was provided by the Spanish Customs at the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain where for the first time in many visits to Europe, I had to lift a piece of luggage from the top of the car and


take it into the Customs shed to be examined. Naturally, that sort of thing happens every time one returns to this country, and one expects it then, but one does not expect it when travelling in foreign countries which have not much interest in what one is taking in and out because they are mostly one's personal effects and it is obvious that one is not trying to smuggle. When I took my bag back the Customs official, who made no attempt to help me in any way, asked for a tip. Needless to say, he did not get one. That is the only occasion when journeying to France, Spain, Switzerland, Germany and Italy during the last seven or eight years that I have had luggage examined by foreign Customs officials.
I hope that this trouble will be solved. I am sure that, given firmness by the Government, it can be. If that is not enough, I wonder whether the good offices of our friends in the United States could be enlisted. The problem ought to be solved as quickly as possible for the benefit of the people of Gibraltar and also so that we can bring to an end the unhappy situation existing between us and the Spanish Government.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: This is one of those occasions when one rises solely because of a speech previously made in the debate. I listened with very great interest to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), and as the Adjournment debate has begun early enough for us to be able to challenge statements of this kind, it seems proper to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman advanced arguments which I feel should most certainly be refuted if the debate is to represent in the OFFICIAL REPORT a fair balance of views in the House.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, of all people, has advanced these views since he took the very courageous step of resigning from his party when he heard that it was contemplating an act of abdication in regard to British interests, and when in his view the act of abdication was absolutely clear, he took the opportunity of rejoining his party. However, we will leave that without comment.
We have here something which anyone who has followed the newspapers knows

to be part of a fairly long series of deliberately provocative acts by the Spanish against British interests and trade in Gibraltar. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has very properly raised the subject. We have been told that for three reasons this is an unhappy debate, and my hon. Friend's speech was an unhappy one.
The first reason given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that it is unfortunate to air these matters in Parliament. I try very hard not to do him an injustice, but if I were to accept what I understood to be his point of view, I should leave the House this evening and apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. The object of Parliament is to air the views and anxieties that hon. Members have about not only their constituents but British interests abroad and anything that we believe to be a matter of concern to the country.
My hon. Friend took the ordinary course of questioning the Minister and then the very proper course of notifying his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I cannot believe that the future of the world so hinges on Anglo-Spanish relations that it is improper for my hon. Friend to raise the matter in the House.

Major Legge-Bourke: I never for a moment suggested that it was improper. If it had been, I am certain that someone more important than I am would have taken the appropriate action. It was certainly not improper under our Parliamentary procedure to do so. I said that it was a pity.

Mr. Benn: It was obviously not improper. Neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman nor I would query the right of Mr. Speaker to allocate the subject for debate on the Adjournment. There was a suggestion from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when a matter arose which might involve another Government it was unhappy to debate it in the House of Commons. However, when various hon. Members feel that the Foreign Office has been lax in its duty, it becomes our duty to raise the matter, and I understood that was the object of the exercise tonight.
The second of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's arguments against the course which my hon. Friend has proposed is


that in order to preserve a united front in the cold war, Anglo-Spanish relations must be kept warm and nothing must seem to come between us as a cause for controversy. That is something which in an ordinary Adjournment debate of half an hour would go unchallenged because there would not be time, but I should be very sorry if anyone reading the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT gained the impression that if one is anti-Communist, that is all that is necessary in order to be on our side in the cold war.
When the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks about "our battle" with the Communist world, I take it that he means, as I do, that he objects to certain aspects of Communist rule. There is nothing magic about the word "Communist" which is evil; we object to Communism and Communist methods for the specific reasons that the people do not have an opportunity for expressing their view, that there is no free association under the law, that there is no treatment of people according to our Anglo-Saxon traditions of justice. I imagine that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely would object to those practices whether they occurred in Russia, Spain, the Union of South Africa, or wherever they happened. Therefore, if only for the record, I challenge the fundamental view that one has only to be anti-Communist to be an ally of the West and of the free world.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman has carefully left out the other thing I said, which was that it was based on the Christian religion.

Mr. Benn: The hon. and gallant Member had better explain that principle. Is he suggesting that the Spanish regime has due regard for the religion of the free world?

Major Legge-Bourke: The Spanish nation.

Mr. Benn: I had better not go into wide issues like that which may take up a longer time than we have.
I come to the third very important argument which is whether the Anglo-American alliance is so delicate and fragile a relationship that we cannot raise with the Americans our anxieties about parts of the world where our joint interests are concerned. There is a view

—I know that it is the view of some hon. Members opposite; I have never understood it—that the basis of the Anglo-American alliance should be that we should never query each other's line or policy and that anything which suggests disagreement should be instantly suppressed.
I do not know what experience hon. Members have of the United States. My own experience—and I go there for a few months every two or three years—is that the more one is willing to discuss frankly with the Americans one's view, the better the relationship. The one thing
which Americans cannot stand is humbug, and I believe that the one besetting sin of British politicians is humbug. I am extending this to everybody. It is not intentional, but we all have a feeling that if one produces an agreed statement which says nothing, that is better than a statement in which everything is not agreed and which says something.
I am convinced that if the relationship between us and the Americans is to be fruitful we must have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) once put it, a sort of "creative friction "between Britain and the United States. To expect statesmen not to raise issues which are controversial and to say that that will impress the Russians and will make the Kremlin tremble, I very strongly doubt.
Here is an issue in which the Spanish Government have engaged in deliberate provocation of the United Kingdom and its interests in Gibraltar. It is something which affects the defence strategy of this country and Gibraltar's relations with the United Kingdom. In the cold war, the psychological value of the Anglo-Spanish alliance in the neutral countries of Asia and Africa is so slight as not to merit consideration. If the Anglo-American alliance is to be of perpetual value, as I fervently hope, the foreign policy of this country must be based on absolute frankness and expectation of co-operation. I hope that the Minister will feel able to answer the debate frankly so that we may all know what is his view.

5.44 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): I can say straight away that we certainly try to conduct our relations with the United States on the basis of absolute frankness,


and I think I can show that. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) merely exaggerated what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was saying. Nobody on this side of the House has ever suggested that there should never be any outspoken disagreement between ourselves and the United
States. The alliance, the comradeship, between us is strong enough to stand that sort of thing and, indeed, I think that I am right in recalling that the communiqué itself mentioned one point of disagreement.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) employed a phrase which, he said, he noticed I did not like. He must have had that observation in his notes before he made it, because I did my best to show no reaction. I certainly did not dislike it when he said that he was accusing the Foreign Office of flirting with Spain at any cost. I do not mind that. It does not happen to be accurate, but nobody could possibly dislike any statement which the hon. Member makes, because he always speaks with such sincerity and charm. It was in those terms that he made that very accusation this afternoon.
The Foreign Office is not flirting with Spain or with anybody—at least as far as I am aware—at any cost. What we are trying to do is to maintain friendly relations with the Spanish Government, but not at any cost and certainly not at the cost of bartering the rights of those who believe in us and who are our friends. But because sometimes a government or an organisation of any other sort acts in such a way as to disappoint one, that does not mean one must fly off the handle and lose a sense of proportion, nor, equally, that one should turn one's back on it and pretend that it is not happening. That is the view of the Foreign Office and, therefore, of the Government about Spain.
It is really quite untrue to say that we are complacent. That was another word used by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and by others. Complacency is not part of our make-up, either here or in any other sphere. All is not well in respect of what is happening vis-á-vis Spain and Gibraltar and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) was accurate when he described what was happening as "pinpricks." He was inaccurate, as I shall

try to suggest later, when he came to the part that the United States may be playing in all this.
However, in so far as he was saying that the Spanish Government are indulging in a policy of pin-pricking and humiliation, that was certainly not an exaggeration of what is unfortunately happening at the moment. On the exact reason why this is being done his guess is as good as mine. All one can say with certainty is that this kind of thing is the greatest possible pity, because it can do no good to anybody, let alone Spain herself.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me specifically to let him know what was going on about the issue of passes to the labour force. I can give him a complete answer on that. The position is that no passes are being issued to the following: to new recruits to the labour force; persons who have not worked in Gibraltar during the last five years; and persons who have been residing in areas other than the Campo area during the last two years. That is the answer to his question. I am afraid that it is not a very encouraging answer, but it happens to be the right one. I do not deny the allegations made about the continuance of this pin-prick policy towards British residents. What he said was certainly perfectly true in its general presentation.
I wish to make it clear that Americans are not now exempt from restrictions at the Gibraltar frontier. The hon. Gentleman thought they were. At one time there was discrimination, but that has stopped. That may not exactly be an improvement, but it is not quite as bad as it was in terms of discrimination between the Americans and ourselves.

Mr. Dodds: How does the hon. Gentleman square up this talk of pin-pricks with his reference to labour? Does he not appreciate that there is a very big wastage of Spanish labour and if no new passes are being issued, as he has stated, it can have a harmful effect on the economic life of Gibraltar? Does not he appreciate that that is being done at a time when there is widespread unemployment in Spain?

Lord John Hope: I do not dissent from that——

Mr. Dodds: It is not a pin-prick.

Lord John Hope: If enough pin-pricks are administered, in the end the victim is in a condition of considerable pain. That was the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate and I think it is accurate. It is just one thing after another.
I come now to the question of the American line, the shipping line, which the hon. Gentleman asked about. Unfortunately, it is true that this line—the American Export Line is the company concerned—have stopped calling at Gibraltar and call at Algeciras instead. It is a matter of the greatest possible regret to Her Majesty's Government, but there is no reason whatever to suppose that there has been any pressure from Washington. Here,
we get on to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). As I am sure we all do, we must distinguish between individual actions, however unattractive, and Government-inspired action; and there is no reason to suppose that there was any pressure from Washington at all.
Whether it would not be extremely helpful if counter-pressure could be exerted is a different question. But I beg the hon. Gentleman opposite not to let it go out from this House that that has been done in response to some sinister political intrigue—which is what it would amount to—by our allies in Washington. It just is not so.
The hon. Member suggested that we were following the Spanish Government with far too much desire to please and had fawned upon it. One hon. Member said that we were seeking trade talks all the time. In fact, we are not. We are taking part in annual meetings of delegations to discuss the level of trade in each succeeding year. Less than that we could not do and conform with our duty as a Government.
Now I come to the matter of British policy towards Gibraltar. This has been stated quite fairly and squarely by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies more than once recently. I simply wish on behalf of the Foreign Office to repeat and to stand by every single word which my right hon. Friend has said. We are not prepared to consider any change in the status of the Rock. I go further and say that in my view and

in the view of the Foreign Office the ventilation of this matter can bring only discord and will help nobody.
We shall never desert our friends in Gibraltar, who believe in us. I do not think it fair to say that they feel let down or bitter in any way. I had the pleasure of meeting their Parliamentary delegates when they came to this country a year or so ago, and I know quite well that they were encouraged and strengthened by the response they got from every department and from all quarters in this country.
Our policy is that we want friendly relations with the Spanish people and friendly contacts with the Spanish Government. That does not mean that we approve of what is going on now so far as Gibraltar is concerned. We beg our friends in Spain to desist from this fruitless activity which can only help our enemies. We shall be patient, and we shall also be firm, and then we hope that finally we shall be friends.

Mr. Benn: I have listened with care to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He said that the Government were not complacent, and then he simply confirmed everything said by my hon. Friend and gave not a single example of any Government action at any stage or protest about these things. Is he proposing to make no reference to that?

Lord John Hope: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to maintain the aggressive mood which he showed so ably in his speech. All I can tell him is that if he is expecting a resounding declaration about a blockade, or something like that, he is not going to get it.

Mr. Benn: Have any protests of any kind been made to the Spanish Government?

Lord John Hope: The answer to that is: "yes."

Mr. Benn: When?

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman did not answer the specific question which I put to him. Have we asked for any assistance from our American allies with the Spanish Government, and if so, what reply have we received?

Lord John Hope: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me. I am not sure whether we have, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Dame Irene Ward: Before my noble Friend sits down may I ask a question on that? I was a little surprised about what he said about the Parliamentary delegates. When they came here they were very worried about the situation and I think it only right that I should say so. Am I to understand— I should be glad were it so—that after the conversations which took place we were able to give assurances to them which they felt were sound and valid? It makes a tremendous difference if that is so.

Mr. Dodds: They are more worried than ever now.

Lord John Hope: The result of that visit was, I think I am right in saying, talked about in this House by the Colonial Secretary. All I was saying was that I happened to have the pleasure of meeting them. I was not then occupying the office which I now hold. But I did meet them and I was telling the House, because I thought hon. Members would like to know, that my impression was that they were extremely pleased and encouraged by the warm reception they had from all quarters in England.

Dame Irene Ward: Am I to understand that when my hon. Friend was making those observations he was not making them officially, but unofficially?

Lord John Hope: Well, it is difficult to divorce one side of one's personality from the other. I am now talking about something which happened a year or two ago. All I am saying is perfectly accurate in my memory. I did not think that I was barred from giving the hon. Lady the benefit of my memory, which is accurate in this case, nor did I think that the matter was in any state of controversy.
I am not saying that there are not a great many people who are worried now in Gibraltar, but this is some time after the delegation visited us. I was merely rebutting what I thought was an exaggerated charge of complacency made from the other side of the House.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Question is "That this House——"

Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to make a speech? I thought she had made one.

Dame Irene Ward: We had a gentleman's agreement——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There was no agreement with me.

Dame Irene Ward: But I did have a gentleman's agreement with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady has already spoken in this debate.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to get on to another debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not having another debate.

Dame Irene Ward: But I did have a gentleman's agreement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: One can speak only once on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Dame Irene Ward: But this is another subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is one Adjournment Motion. The subject has not changed.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, the subject which was set down for the Adjournment debate was on Gibraltar, but I had the next Adjournment debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady can speak only once, anyway.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I explain that, when I found that the House was likely to rise early, I went to ask Mr. Speaker whether, if I obtained the agreement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to a second Adjournment debate, I should be allowed to initiate it. Mr. Speaker agreed, and I had a gentleman's agreement with the Minister of Housing and Local Government whose Parliamentary


Secretary has very kindly attended the House. I was merely asking a question in the previous debate. We did have that agreement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know nothing of any arrangements for a second Adjournment debate.

Dame Irene Ward: But do you accept my word, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not doubting anyone's word, but I do not take my orders from back benchers.

Dame Irene Ward: No, but I had an interview with Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker's Secretary rang me up and said that if I obtained the agreement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, I would be able to make my speech. The Parliamentary Secretary is here, and I think he will agree that it would be very hard indeed to prevent me from speaking now, when I had that very friendly conversation with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ede: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Lady. As one Tyneside Member speaking for another, may I point out that what the hon. Lady did on two or three occasions was to interrupt the noble Lord who was replying to the debate. She always prefaced the remarks she made in her interruptions by saying "Before the noble Lord sits down—,"which I understood was an interruption in the noble Lord's speech and not a speech of her own. I understand that the hon. Lady feels that she has not exhausted her right to speak because she has not yet made a speech. She has only interrupted the noble Lord, and, if I may say so, very effectively too. I suggest that that is a well-known way of getting into a debate without exhausting one's right to speak, and we have not yet heard the hon. Lady speaking except when interrupting somebody else.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Well, I suppose if it was an interruption before the noble Lord sat down, it was not a speech, and that is that, but it sounded very much like a speech.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I feel very diffident about keeping the House after the main Adjournment debate is over, and I do so only with the agreement of Mr. Speaker, whose advice I naturally sought on the matter, and with the co-operation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, to whom I am very much indebted. But, as you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, one has to seize one's opportunities in this House, and my experience is that if one misses an opportunity, it does not often return. Therefore, I should have been very sorry indeed, since I have kept the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry here during the whole of the debate on the Gibraltar question, waiting to reply to me, if I were not able to put my point of view. I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary very much indeed for his kind co-operation, and I promise not to detain the House for very long.
I want to make one point about housing. I am very interested in what will happen to what I have always referred to as the small fixed income groups. It has occurred to me that in the slum clearance programmes which are to be carried out by the local authorities, there is one matter which is contained in the Housing Act, 1936, which requires some explanation. I have therefore seized this opportunity to try to get the position made quite clear.
The Act provides that when there is a slum clearance project which has to go to the Minister for his approval, those persons displaced under the slum clearance order must be rehoused. When I looked at the Act, and at the appropriate Section 45, it did not seem to me to be very clear, at any rate to me—and I am only an amateur in these matters— whether the local authorities were bound to rehouse all the householders. That is to say, they would, of course, rehouse the married couples, but the Act did not make clear whether the authorities must also rehouse widows, widowers, bachelors and spinsters, or whether it was within their power, so to speak, to be selective.
I sought the guidance provided in the Housing Act, and I wish to read to the House the appropriate Section, of which I am asking my hon. Friend to give a rather broader interpretation. When I first read that Section, it struck me, twenty years after the Act was passed,


that the language of 1936 was very old-fashioned in relation to housing. Here is what Section 45 (1) provides:
A local authority who have passed a resolution declaring any area to be a clearance area or an improvement area shall, before taking any action under that resolution which will necessitate the displacement of any persons of the working classes, undertake to carry out or to secure the carrying out of such rehousing operations, if any, within such period as the Minister may consider to be reasonably necessary.
I understand from the investigations which
I have made that the Minister has never defined what the words "reasonably necessary" mean. I am very anxious that there shall be no loopholes.
I fully appreciate the power of the local authorities, and I am a supporter of and a believer in local government. Sometimes, however, the Minister himself finds himself in conflict with the local authorities. I might instance how very hard the Minister has tried—and I commend him for it—to get local authorities so to interpret their housing policies as to make possible the provision of houses for ex-Regular Service men who have done their duty to their country all over the world and now find it difficult to get their names on any appropriate housing list. I think all hon. Members of this House have found that to be an extremely difficult matter, on which it has been impossible to persuade the local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do.
I am very anxious, before we embark on this very large scheme of slum clearance throughout the whole country, that there should be no loophole, and that local authorities will not themselves be able to be selective in regard to the people whom they can rehouse. I think that is a most important matter, and, therefore, first of all, I put down a Question. Then, this wonderful opportunity arises, and I must say to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as one Tynesider to another, how grateful I am to him for his support. It was very helpful of the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him very much.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to make it perfectly clear that when a slum clearance project is put before the Minister for his approval, all householders—I am not trying to be dogmatic as to whether they live in houses or flats

—affected under the Act will be entitled to new housing under the new scheme arising out of the slum clearance project.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Would the hon. Lady say what she means by "householders?

Dame Irene Ward: Yes. Householders are people who are householders. They may possibly be owner-occupiers—and I am as interested in the owner-occupiers as in the widows who may be tenants of rented houses. A widow, widower, bachelor or spinster may be an owner-occupier of his or her own house.

Mrs. Braddock: That is not the question. This is a very important matter, because in many slum clearance areas some of the houses due to be demolished are sublet, and one such house may be occupied by more than one family. Does the hon. Lady suggest that only the householder of such a property should be rehoused if the house is demolished, and not those who occupy sublet accommodation in the house? They are not householders; they are sub-tenants of the householder.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not want to get involved in the wider aspect of the question. I am quite certain that that problem is properly covered in the slum clearance programmes, although I appreciate that there may be some difficulty about rehousing lodgers. I hope that the hon. Lady will not ask me to interpret the meaning of the word "lodger." Under Section 45 of the 1936 Act, the Minister has power to examine every project which is put before him, to see whether the local authority concerned is rehousing the people who were meant, under the original Act, to be rehoused.
I only require an assurance that no difficulties will arise in respect of people who are regarded as householders. As the hon. Lady knows, priority has quite rightly been given by some local authorities to rehousing married couples, couples who are living apart or with their in-laws and have never had houses of their own, and people living in overcrowded or unsuitable conditions. The people who have gone by the board are the widows, widowers, bachelors and spinsters. Everyone agrees that it was right, after the war, to give priority in these matters to the men returning from the Forces.
I want to know if it is absolutely clear that Section 45 of the 1936 Act gives the Minister power to say to a local authority which puts forward a slum clearance scheme, "You are not providing fairly and squarely for those people whom you have displaced." I leave out altogether the question of the various categories. I want to know whether that Section, in fact, gives the Minister power not merely to guide local authorities but to impose an obligation upon them.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I want to help the hon. Lady. Her plea is one in regard to which hon. Members on this side of the House have a great deal of sympathy. She says that persons who had previously had homes of their own and have been displaced, because of slum clearance, should once again be given homes of their own, but her whole emphasis has been upon the position of householders. In the case of slum clearance schemes in London or the vast majority of the big cities, most of the widows, widowers, spinsters and bachelors are sub-tenants, having their own homes or homes within a household which is in the charge of a householder. Her request to the Parliamentary Secretary excludes all those sub-tenants. Does not she mean to include them?

Dame Irene Ward: I am not out to interpret the whole Act, because I should not be capable of doing so. All I am trying to find out is what power the Minister has. If he has power to impose his will upon local authorities it is for the House of Commons to see that justice is done. The Minister has never defined what Section 45 of the 1936 Act really means, and I am anxious to know whether it gives him power to disapprove of a scheme and say to a local authority, "You are not in fact rehousing the people who have been displaced." My argument is directed entirely to finding out the power possessed by the Minister. Parliament passes Acts of Parliament and it is tremendously important, whether or not we are all in agreement with it, to know what powers the Minister has under a certain Measure. That is what I am asking my hon. Friend to define.

6.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I should

like at the outset to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that it is always a pleasure to be in attendance to answer questions upon matters which she raises, even at much more untimely hours than this. In this case, I believe that I can set at rest entirely the anxieties which she feels in regard to the interpretation and effectiveness of Section 45 (1) of the Housing Act, 1936.
I would first remind her that by the Housing Act, 1949, the words "of the working classes" were deleted from the 1936 Act and, therefore, the words "any persons" occurring in the phrase, "displacement of any persons" are now unrestricted in any way. I would further draw her attention to the fact that the approval of the Minister, implied in the words:
as the Minister may consider to be reasonably necessary.
applies not only to the period of rehousing operations but also to the operations themselves. He must be satisfied that the rehousing operations will meet the situation created by the displacements.
The Minister has, from time to time, drawn the attention of local authorities to their obligation in regard to rehousing. The most recent instance was the circular issued less than two years ago—Circular No. 75 of 1954—which drew the attention of local authorities to their obligation to rehouse any persons displaced in the course of these clearance operations. Perhaps I may be permitted to explain to the House how the Minister is in a position, in fact, to secure that the "reasonably necessary" arrangements for the rehousing of persons displaced are carried out.

Mrs. Braddock: This is very important. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain that the responsibility for rehousing relates only to those people who are living in the slum clearance area on the date when the schedule is taken? Will he make it clear that once notice has been given that a certain area is to be scheduled as a slum clearance area and that the houses in it have to be demolished, only those people living in that area when the schedule is made have to be rehoused? I ask because not only in my own area but in other parts of the country the idea exists that anybody living in a house pulled down in a slum clearance area


must be rehoused, whether or not they lived there when the census of those living in the area took place.

Mr. Powell: The Act refers to "persons displaced" in the course of the operations which are referred to. The displacement involved in the course of those operations is a question of interpretation, but I think it would be helpful if I were to explain how the Minister's judgment on the matter contained in Section 45 is, in practice, exercised.
The Section refers to
A local authority who have passed a resolution declaring any area to be a clearance area".
Such an authority must then adopt one of two courses of action laid down in Section 25 (3) of the Act. The local authority can either make a compulsory purchase order and submit it to the Minister for confirmation, or it can make a clearance order which,

similarly, requires his confirmation. The Minister does not confirm either of those kinds of order unless he has before him a detailed statement of the manner in which the local authority intends to carry out its rehousing obligations.
If he were not satisfied with the arrangements proposed for rehousing he would be quite within his rights—indeed, he would be thoroughly justified—in declining to confirm the relevant compulsory purchase or clearance order. Therefore, my hon. Friend may rest assured that the obligation exists in the Act and that, in the administration of the Act, the Minister has the necessary powers and the necessary opportunity to insist upon that obligation being fulfilled.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Six o'clock.